SHANTICHAND BALCHAND BORAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), VEJALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 33/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 April 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the orders below were silent on the service of statutory notices and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a bogus deduction of Rs. 16,83,123/- on the sale of immovable property. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case, issued notices which the assessee claims were not received, and passed an ex-parte assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and if the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present evidence due to non-service of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/04/2024

O R D E R The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under:

1.

“1. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts by not quashing the reassessment proceeding and annulling the assessment order passed as the same is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 2. The learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and facts by confirming the disallowance of Rs.16,83,123/- of indexed value of improvement cost and transfer expense and therefore the learned AO be directed to allow the said expense while computing total income.

(Shantichand Balchand Borar vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2013-14 - 2 – 3. That the appellant craves liberty to add, amend and alter any ground of appeal before the final hearing.”

3. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.21,57,210/-. As per the information available with the Income Tax Department, the assessee claimed bogus deduction of Rs.16,83,123/- by computing long term capital gain on sale of immovable property. The AO observed that the assessee invested amount of Rs.96 Lakhs in time deposits during F.Y. 2012-13 source of which is not known. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and reasons were provided to the assessee. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee and the same was served. The assessee failed to respond to the notices and, therefore, the AO passed assessment order under Section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 16,83,123/- thereby disallowing the cost of improvement and brokerage expenses on account of cost on transport.

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 the notices either before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. AO for proper adjudication and allow the assessee to file the requisite evidences. The ld. AR further submitted that there is a delay of 60 days in filing the present (Shantichand Balchand Borar vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2013-14 - 3 – appeal. The same should be condoned as the assessee is above 80 years and was not aware about the Faceless Scheme.

6.

The ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the ld. CIT(A).

7.

Heard both the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The delay appears to be genuine as stated in the affidavit of the assessee and, therefore, the delay is condoned. As regards the assessment order and the order of the ld. CIT(A), both the orders are silent on the service of statutory notices served upon the assessee. The AO has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the ld. AO thereby taking on record the details/evidences which will be filed by the assessee before the AO and thereafter after verifying the same, adjudicate the issues as per Income Tax Statute. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →