JASVANT BARAIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1430/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2024AY 2016-17Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The assessee's counsel agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, and the AO was directed to issue a notice and pass a fresh assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, sold ancestral land for Rs. 4,86,00,000/- and received his 1/4th share of Rs. 1,21,50,000/-. He did not file a return of income, believing no tax was applicable. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of the entire sale consideration under Section 69A for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of the reopening of assessment and the addition made under Section 69A for sale consideration of agricultural land, compounded by the assessee's non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMARMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, AR
Hearing: 18/11/2024Pronounced: 22/11/2024

आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2016-17 Jasvant Baraiya The ITO बनाम/ 11-45 Panchal No Kuvo Ward-3(3)(2) v/s. Vastral, Daskroi Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382 418 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: CHWPB 8346 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, AR Revenue by : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

PER DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CITA[, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in proceeding u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 25/06/2024 passed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

2.

The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee are as under:-

1. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is against law equity & justice.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of order passed by the Ld.AO, when reopening of assessment is bad and illegal. Jasvant Baraiya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 2

3. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made u/s.69A of the Act of sale consideration of agriculture land of Rs.4,86,00,000/- when share of appellant is 1/4th.

4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and engaged in agriculture activities on his ancestral land nearby Ahmedabad. The assessee has no other income and, therefore, did not file the return for the year under consideration. During the year, the assessee sold joint property being ancestral land for total consideration of Rs.4,86,00,000/-. The assessee was joint owner having 1/4th share and has received his share of Rs.1,21,50,000/-. The assessee did not file return of income on Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of land as he was under the impression that no tax is applicable on ancestral land as he is an agriculturist.

3.1. The assessee did not attend for the hearing on 11/12/2021, 10/01/2022, 24/01/2022 and 28/02/2022 before the AO which led to passing of an order dated 23/03/2022 u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act making addition of whole amount of total consideration of Rs.4,86,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Act. The assessee has also failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) which led to passing of an ex-parte order rejecting the appeal of the assessee.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Before us, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that given opportunity due compliance would be made before the AO, where the preliminary default has occurred. The Counsel has also agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost, which shall be deposited in the Prime Jasvant Baraiya vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 Minister’s National Relief Fund and the copy of proof to the AO, who shall issue the notice to the assessee and pass an assessment order De novo.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →