PANKAJKUMAR N. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 439/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2024AY 2012-13Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the assessee is given an opportunity to make submissions before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was processed, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of bank loan, proprietor's capital account, and agricultural income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present submissions before the AO for reassessment proceedings and additions made under various sections.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMARMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, AR
Hearing: 18/11/2024Pronounced: 22/11/2024

आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2012-13 Pankajkumar N. Patel The ITO बनाम/ A-204, Green Leaves, Ward-1 v/s. Science City Road Ahmedabad – 384 265 Sola, Ahmedabad – 380 060 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ABZPP 0368 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parin S. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri C. Dharani Nath, 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 11/01/2024 passed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee are as under:-

1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. Pankajkumar N. Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 2 Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts reopening in of assessment u/s 148 of the Act ignoring fact that there is no escapement of income and case has been reopened for making fishing and roving inquiries.

3 Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of unexplained investment of Rs.702667/- u/s69A of the Act.

4, Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1808774/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A ignoring fact that section does not have applicability.

5.

Initiation of penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act. u/s 6. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C are unjustified.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the year under consideration by declaring total income of Rs.2,46,200/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) ongoing to non-compliance of the notice issued to the assessee. The addition has been made on account of bank loan on proprietor’s capital account on an agricultural income.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that due confirmations could not be filed owing to reasons beyond assessee’s control and ill-health of family members of the assessee. The assessee pleaded that given an opportunity, due to compliance would be made before the AO, where the primary default has occurred. Thus, keeping in view, we hold that no prejudice is caused to the Revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to make his submissions before the AO. Hence, the matter is remanded to the AO to consider the submissions made by the assessee. Pankajkumar N. Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →