HUSHENBHAI ISMAILBHAI KAATARIYA,UNA vs. ITO-WARD 4, VERAVAL
Facts
The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 90,00,000/-, which was valued at Rs. 1,40,11,002/- by the stamp duty valuation authority. As the assessee did not file a return, the case was reopened, and notices were issued under sections 148/142(1). The assessee did not comply, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,40,11,000/- by the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that notices were issued to the assessee by both the CIT(A) and the AO. However, the order does not clearly state whether the notices were served on the assessee. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices, leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was properly served with notices for assessment and appeal proceedings, and if not, should a fresh opportunity be granted?
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH,
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
ITA No 387/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year. 2012-13 Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya v. ITO
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.387/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4, 202-03 Dhruv Complex Una, Yogeshwar Bhavan, Opp. S.T. Opp. K. V. School, Una, Bus Stamd, Junagadh-362560 Veraval- 362265 Gujarat Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BMSPM1645L (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Ms. Kaushani Shah, Ld. A.R. : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing : 12/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(in short “NFAC/Ld. CIT (A)”] vide order dated 27.03.2024, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:
ITA No 387/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year. 2012-13 Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya v. ITO
On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order without discussing grounds on merits. 2. On the facts and circumstanced of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without providing enough opportunities to represent the case of the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without considering that assessee was unaware about the hearing notices. 4. on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of re-assessment proceedings. 5. On he facts and circumstanced of the case as well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,40,11,000/- as long-term capital gain. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,40,11,000/- as long-term capital gain without considering that the land is a rural agricultural land and long-term capital gain in exempt. 7. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,40,11,000/- as long-term capital gain without giving benefit of cost of acquisition. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,40,11,000/- as long-term capital gain without considering that the assessee has purchased agricultural lands out of consideration received from sale of agricultural land. 9. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.
Brief facts of the case:
That no return filed by the assessee:
“Brief facts of this case are that the appellant has sold immovable property amounting to Rs. 90,00,000/-. The stamp duty valuation authority has valued the property at Rs. 1,40,11,002/-. As the appellant did not file return of income during the year under consideration, capital gains arising out of sale remained to be taxed. The case was reopened for verification of the same. Statutory notices were issued u/s. 148/142(1). However, the appellant did not comply to any of the notices. As the transaction made by the appellant remained unexplained, the AO completed the assessment by making the addition of Rs. 1,40,11,000/- being sale value adopted by stamp Duty Authority to the total income. ”
ITA No 387/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year. 2012-13 Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya v. ITO
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Ld. AO dated 20.12.2019 before the CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has issued notice for hearing on 16.03.2021, 05.01.2023, 01.03.2023. The appellant has not responded to notice. The appeal of the assessment was dismissed in the absence of the documentary evidence.
The appellant file an appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.03.2024 before us.
Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not comply with the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. ITO because no notices were served on the assessee. Ld. AR prayer for one more opportunity may kindly be given to the appellant to represent the case before the lower Authority.
Ld. DR has relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. DR has not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR.
We have heard both the parties and perused the documents available on record. We noted that the notices issued to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the case but the order is silent on the service of notice upon the assessee and the notices were also issued by the Ld. ITO for hearing during the
ITA No 387/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year. 2012-13 Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya v. ITO
course of assessment proceeding. We also note that the assessee could not
comply with notices because no notices were served for hearing. Hence, orders
were passed with ex – parte by the both the Authorities. Therefore, we are of the
view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his
case before Ld. AO. Theretofore, we remand the matter back to the file of the
Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits; after giving due opportunity to be heard. The assessee is directed to submit all the required documents in support
of the income earned during the year. before the Ld. AO during the course of
assessment proceeding.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 13/01/2025 in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY Rajkot िदनांक/ Date:13 / 01 /2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT (A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6 . Guard File. By Order, Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot
