SATISH RAMANBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

आदेश/ORDER PER : DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:-

taken by the assessee are as under:- “All the grounds of appeal in this appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. Reopening of Proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre ("the CIT(A)") and the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4), Vadodara ("the AO") erred in fact and in law in reopening the proceedings of the Appellant u/s. 148 of the Act.

2. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was barred by limitation u/s. 149 of the Act.

3. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in issuing notice u/s. 148A of the Act beyond the stipulated time as per Section 149 of Act. Addition of Rs.1,00,00,000 as Capital Gains

4. The learned AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/-without allowing the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition as eligible u/s. 48 of the Act.

5. The learned AO erred in fact and in law in making an addition of the gross value of sales without ascertaining the FMV of the capital asset as on 01.04.2001 as per Section 48 of the Act.

6. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making the addition to the total income of the Appellant without considering the submission made in proper perspective. Other Grounds 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in dismissing the appeal as infractuous after application of section 249(4) of the Act.

8. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in charging interest u/s. 234Aofthe Act.

9. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in charging interest u/s. 234BoftheAct.

10. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO erred in fact and in law in initiating proceedings u/s. 271 (l)(C) of the Act.

11. Your Appellant craves the right to add, to alter, to substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of Appeal.”

3. Heard the arguments of both the parties. The appeal is time barred by 79 days and the same is condoned. In this case, the assessment order has been passed on 19-03-2023 for assessment year 2015-16 u/s. 144 as the assessee has not made any compliance to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1.2 lakhs on account of capital gain and interest income. Record before us also reveals that the assessee has not made any compliance before the ld. CIT(A) which led to passing of an ex-prate order. The ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the appeal of the assessee as due advance tax has not been paid.

4. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an illiterate and was not well versed with the income tax proceedings hence could not make any compliance and prayed that given an opportunity due compliance would be made before the revenue authorities. The ld. D.R. fairly accepted the proposal that the matter be looked into by the Assessing Officer. Hence, keeping in view the specific facts of this case, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to initiate assessment proceedings de-novo after obtaining the receipt of payment of Rs. 5,000/- by the Assessee to Prime Minter Relief Fund as accepted by the ld. Counsel during the hearing before us.