CHANDRAKANT GAJANAN PARADHI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(4), NAGPUR

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13/12/2024 impugned herein passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year 2017-18 (AY).

(Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi) 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO), vide order dated 30/03/2022 u/sec.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, has made the additions of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on account of ‘long term capital gain’ and Rs. 17.77 lakhs on account of ‘difference of sale consideration and stamp duty valuation’ u/sec. 50C of the Act.

is dismissed on merit also”.

5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and documents available on record and the orders passed by the authorities below. From Form No. 35 and the first part of the impugned order, it appears that the (Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi) Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner had challenged the re-assessment order dated 30/03/2022 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the Ld. AO but not the penalty order, but somehow may be overlooking or inadvertent mistake, Ld.Commissioner affirmed the AO’s action levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Thus, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld.Commissioner for decision on the issues involved in the relevant assessment order, suffice to say by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essentially required. In case of subsequent default, Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is, accordingly, remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.