ANKITA BRIJESH PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal based on non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit after providing an opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions for short-term capital gain and unexplained expenditure was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) did not grant sufficient time for hearing due to their CA's engagement with trust return filings.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and if the additions made by the AO were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of assessing officer passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.2,18,894/- for short term capital gain and Rs.66,088/- U/s. 69C of the Act.
2. That the various reasons advanced by Id. CIT(A) in confirming the additions are contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record.
The appellant respectfully submits that notice for hearing on 22.11.2023 was not attended as the CA of appellant were busy in filing Income tax return of trust for which the due date was 30.11.2023 and in particular last date change was made in utility for returns of trust. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the Id. CIT(A) should had given reasonable time to the appellant.
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 2 of 3
4. The appellant respectfully submits that as submitted in Grounds of Appeal, the appellant was only confirming party to the deal with 3.15% share. Therefore, no addition can be made for 3.15% of Banakhat value of Rs.70,00,000/-. The appellant was entitled only to incremental value. The final sale deed was executed for Rs.1,70,00,000/-. The appellant was entitled to 3.15% of Rs.1,00,00,000/- which is already shown in the return of income. Therefore, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.2,18,894/-. The same addition should be deleted.
5. The appellant further submits that he has paid banakhat value of Rs.66,088/- which is recorded in the books of accounts. The ld. CIT(A) has therefore erred in confirming addition of Rs.66,088/-. The said addition should be deleted.”
3. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income showing income of Rs.2,21,905/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Assessment Order was passed on 28.08.2017 determining income at Rs.3,31,210/- thereby making addition of Rs.1,09,305/- on account of valuation under Section 50C of the Act. The PCIT invoked provisions of Section 263 of the Act and pursuance to the order under Section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed order dated 09.08.2021 making an addition of Rs.2,18,894/- in Short Term Capital Gain and Rs.66,088/- under Section 69C of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order for non- prosecution without deciding the matter on merit. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested therein on merit.
The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 3 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has only issued two notices to the assessee but whether those notices were served to the assessee is not mentioned in the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has decided the appeal for non- prosecution and not on merit. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee in the appeal filed before the CIT(A) and adjudicate the same on merit and decide as per the Income Tax Statute. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 14th June, 2024.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
