JITENDRA JASHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 707/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 September 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not adjudicate on the merits of the case and was passed ex-parte due to alleged non-service of notice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a plot of land for Rs. 45,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer referred the matter to the DVO for valuation and, in the absence of a report, made an addition of Rs. 7,47,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits and followed principles of natural justice, particularly regarding notice and opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.08.2024Pronounced: 20.09.2024

O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity and justice. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating for addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.7,47,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) by ignoring material evidence on records.”

3.

The assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,94,260/-. During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee alongwith other co-owner purchased plot of land for a consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer, after taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, held that the gross area of land and the requisite consideration needs to be verified and, therefore, referred the matter to the DVO to determine the value of the land. Since the DVO has not field the report, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.7,47,000/- in respect of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not received any show cause notice of hearing conducted before the CIT(A) and the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and that of only on the ground of non-appearance. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that though the CIT(A) has given the details of issuance of notice but whether the same has been served upon the relevant address of the assessee (e- mail of the assessee) was not properly mentioned in the order of the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) is not commenting anything relating to the merit of the case. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merit after taking cognisance of the evidences filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 20th September, 2024.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →