MANOJ ISHWAR CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 102/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had suffered personal losses during the period and could not effectively participate in the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A). Therefore, without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading plastic gift and articles, filed his income tax return for AY 2012-13. The case was reopened under Section 147, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 80,55,553/- as short-term capital gains based on Section 50C of the Act, treating the sale consideration as the stamp duty value. The CIT(A) sustained the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in invoking Section 50C for a property that was part of a block of assets and whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without considering the assessee's submissions and personal circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 144,Section 147,Section 143(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Mahita Nair, DR
Hearing: 28.05.2024Pronounced: 31.05.2024
1.

Manoj Ishwar Choudhary (assessee / appellant) for A.Y. 2012-13, against the appellate order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 24th November, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the

2.

The assessee is aggrieved with the appellate order has preferred this appeal raising following grounds of appeal:-

““1. Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals was not justified in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer u/s 50C of I. Tax Act of Rs 80,55,553/- as Short Term Capital gains.

2. Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals was not justified in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer only because Purchase deed of premises was not submitted.

3. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and Assessing Officer ought to have considered that Appellant’s Father, Mr. Ishwar Choudhary, expired due to COVID in 2021.

4.

Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals and AO ought to have considered that Appellant's Mother, Mrs. Poonam Choudhary, was diagnosed with Brain Hemorrhage in 2022.

5. Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals

6. Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals and AO ought to have considered that Appellant's Accountant, Mr. Devu Poojari, expired in 2022

7. Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals and AO ought to have considered that the Office Premises formed part of block of assets and even after sale of office premises, the block of assets had balance of Rs 78,76,312 on 31-3-12.

8.

Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Depreciation of Rs 4,43,635/- claimed on block of Office Premises.”

3.

Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in plastic gift and articles as proprietor of Jwel products. The assessee filed his return of income on 29th September, 2012, at a total income of ₹23,98,854/-. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29th March, 2016, for the reason that an information was received through the sale

4. The assessee filed the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). As per Para no.14 of the appellate order, six notices were issued for hearing. Assessee responded with adjournment request once and but filed one written submission Therefore, based on the statement of fact filed before him and submissions, the learned CIT (A) held that the assessee has not brought on record purchase deed to prove the fact that block of the assets is continuing to exits, he sustained the order of the learned Assessing Officer.

5.

Assessee is aggrieved preferred the appeal before us. Despite notice, none appeared before us on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the issue is decided as per information available on record. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have carefully considered the contentions of the lower authorities and facts laid down before them incorporated in the assessment and appellate orders. The ground no.3 - 6 of the appeal the appeal shows that assessee has lost is father, mother, Younger brother and his accountant during this period and therefore, assessee could not reply the notices of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We find that the hearings were fixed on 26th February, 2021 to 26th July, 2023, i.e. on six occasions.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05. 2024.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →