BADRISH PRAVINBHAI SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1)(OLD WARD- 2(2)(1)), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1156/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 November 2024AY 2011-12Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Vice President)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's reasons for delay and arguments on merit, passing a de novo order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The assessment order was passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, determining total income significantly higher than the returned income due to cash paid for property acquisition.

What were the issues?

The appeal raised issues regarding the validity of reopening of assessment, the necessity of issuing notice under Section 143(2), and the validity of additions made under Section 68 based on 'dumb documents'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 151,Section 143(2),Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr DR
Hearing: 26.11.2024Pronounced: 29.11.2024

O R D E R 1. Delay condoned.

2.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 20.03.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

3.

The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice.

1.

2. Reopening of assessment and consequential all actions are void & illegal as no sanction as requisite U/S 151 of the Act has been accorded

3. Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of assessment order passed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

4. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the validity of assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. Badrish Pravinbhai Soni Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2–

5.

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act in regard to alleged unaccounted investment.

6.

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 11,65,000/-. 7. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts upheld the addition made by the Ld. A.O. merely relying on dumb documents. 8. The appellant Craves liberty to add amends, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal

before final appeal.”

4. In this case, the assessment order has been passed by the ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Ahmedabad on 30.11.2018 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining total income of Rs.13,11,800/- against the returned income of Rs.1,46,860/-, on account of cash paid for acquisition of property. The ld. CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee owing to delay of 4 months and non-filing of explanation before him. Having gone through the record and having heard the arguments of the parties, it is hereby directed that the assessee shall submit the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal along with the details of their arguments on merit which the ld. CIT(A) shall consider and pass an order de novo.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →