M/S BABA BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No.1394 & 1404/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2018-19
M/s. Baba Builders
Flat No. 104, White House, Sector-2
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALFB 1232 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri P.C.Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Safin Nil Parihar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 17/02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 17 /02/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 17.10.2024 & 18.10.2024, National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [forshort (NFAC)/CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2018-19 in the matter of Section 147/144 and 270A of the Act respectively.
2
M/S. BABA BUILDERS VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR
2.1
In ITA No. 1394/JP/2024, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:-
‘’1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.74,00,000/- made by AO under the head long term capital gain ignoring that from the sale deed it is evident that the assessee acquired the land on 19.11.2015 on which two storied villa is constructed, assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and thus has erred in not allowing the deduction towards cost of acquisition & improvement and not assessing the income under the head business.
2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite granting several opportunities whereas due to ill health of the partner of the firm, these notices never came to his knowledge and thus remained unresponded.
2.2
In ITA No. 1404/JP/2024, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:-
1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.7,62,200/- u/s 270A of IT Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite granting several opportunities whereas due to ill health of the partner of the firm, these notices never came to his knowledge and thus remained unresponded.
2.3
Apropos ground of appeal in ITA No. 1394/JP/2024, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 8 of his order as under:-
‘’8.3 On perusal of assessment order, it is seen that the appellant had not filed the return of income whereas it had sold immovable property. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued for AY 2018-19 on 26.03.2022. The AO has issued notices from time to time giving opportunity to the appellant to file his reply
However, the appellant failed to file any explanation, reply or evidence during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO added the amount in respect of sale of immovable property amounting to Rs. 74,00,000/- during the year under 3
M/S. BABA BUILDERS VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR consideration as the amount remained unexplained and unverified. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not made any submissions to substantiate his grounds of appeal that how the impugned order is bad in law. No corroborative proof has been filed inspite of being given so many opportunities
Keeping in view the above facts, there is no reason to interfere with the assessment order on this account, therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.’’
4 During the course of hearing, the ld .AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be given one more chance to contest the case before the AO as the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities for which the assessee has filed the following written submission. 1. The assessee is engaged in the real estate business. It has not filed any return of income for the year under consideration. The AO on the basis of information that there is sale of two double storied villas for Rs.74 lacs made addition for the same as long term capital gain as there was no representation from the assessee. In doing so no deduction towards cost of purchase of plot made on 19.11.2015 for Rs.17,75,000/- and the cost of construction of villa was considered by the AO. 2. Against the assessment order assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC tabulated the hearing date at Pg 3 of the order. The notice dt. 28.05.2024, 11.06.2024 and 24.07.2024 were deficiency letter issued (PB 2) and not the notice of hearing. The notice dt. 06.08.2024, 20.08.2024, 13.09.2024 & 23.09.2024 (PB 1-2) were hearing notices which could not be attended as partner of firm Sh. Pravesh Baweja was suffering from back pain radiating to both lower limbs associated with numbness since March, 2024 that exacerbated in the month of July & August, 2024 which developed into walking difficulty. He was also hospitalized and was discharged on 12.09.2024. Copy of his discharge summary is at PB 4-7. For this reason the hearing notices issued by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC did not came to the notice and could not be responded. In the absence of representation by assessee, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC confirmed the order passed by AO. In view of above peculiar facts of the case, it is prayed that in the interest of substantial justice, the case of assessee be set aside to the AO for denovo assessment.’’
4
M/S. BABA BUILDERS VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR
2.5
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was lethargic in pursuing his case in spite of granting various opportunities to the assessee.
2.6
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed that the AO made an addition of Rs.74,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:-
‘’In this case the information in respect of sale of immovable propertywas uploaded by the SRO Jaipur-1 for Rs.74,00,000/- and the same information having same value has also been uploaded by the Inspector General