SMT. RADHADEVI MADHUSUDAN JAJODIA,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
ITA no.84/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Radhadevi Madhusudan Jajodia FA–17, Lake City Mall, Near Big Bazar ……………. Appellant Thane 400 607 PAN – AAPPJ7485F v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Amravati Circle, Amravati Assessee by : Shri Himesh Damble Revenue by : Shri Rajat Singhai
Date of Hearing – 25/06/2024 Date of Order – 25/06/2024
O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 01/02/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15.
Following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee:–
“1. That the order framed under sec 250 by the Ld. CIT (A) is unjustified and bad in law. 2. That in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. A.O. erred is not referring the valuation of lands (forty six in number) to a valuation officer u/s. 43CA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. A.O. ought to have appreciated that the addition is based upon a deeming provision which is rebuttable.
Radhadevi Madhusudan Jajodia ITA no.84/Nag./2023
That in facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) & Ld. A.O. ought to have referred the matter to Divisional Valuation officer when they were not satisfied with the explanation of assessee. 5. The assessee denies liability to be assessed to interest u/s 234A and 234B of Income tax Act, 1961, without prejudice the interest levied u/s 234A and 234B is unjustified and unwarranted 6. The assessee also denies liability to be assessed to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. Without prejudice the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified and unwarranted.”
Facts in brief:– The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of plot development. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/11/2014, declaring total income at ` 35,60,840. The case was picked up for scrutiny through CASS for the verification of the complete issue and notice under section 143(2) dated 18/09/2015, which was issued and served upon the assessee on 18/09/2015. Notice u/s 142(1) and questionnaire were issued on 03/08/2016 and duly served upon the assessee on 09/08/2016. The Assessing Officer, on a perusal of the information available on record, noticed that the assessee sold most of the land below the stamp valuation. The cumulative difference of sale value between the plot and stamp duty valuation came to be ` 16,20,000. The Assessing Officer sought explanation from the assessee as to why the difference should not be added to her income as per the provisions of section 43CA and 50C. In reply, the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 43CA and 50C have no application to the issue in hand. However, the Assessing Officer made addition for an amount of ` 16,20,000 under section 43CA / 50C and added to the income of the assessee.
Radhadevi Madhusudan Jajodia ITA no.84/Nag./2023
Before the learned CIT(A), in response to the multiple notices issued by the learned CIT(A), the assessee had requested for 15 days time. The learned CIT(A) granted time up to 28/12/2022. Since the assessee had not filed any reply, the learned CIT(A), by considering the provisions of section 43CA, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.
Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 43CA, the same is objected by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) ought to have been referred to the DVO for valuation and submitted that a reference may be made by the DVO.
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A).
We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below In this case, the learned CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to file its reply on the issue of undervaluation of property but the assessee though sought time, has not file any reply nor filed any details. Under these circumstances, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and grant opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A). The assessee is also directed to filed all the details as desired by the Assessing Officer promptly. Needless
Radhadevi Madhusudan Jajodia ITA no.84/Nag./2023
the say, the learned CIT(A) is directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/06/2024
Sd/- Sd/- A.M. ROY V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 25/06/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur
