SHRI SWAROOPSINH VRUDHAJI SODHA,,NAKHTRANA (KUTCH) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ (KUTCH)

The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is an individual and agricultural of profession. The assessee being an agriculturist acted as agent of Shri Pratap Bhagvanji Thacker of Bhuj who was purchasing agricultural lands in Kutch for Adani Group of Companies for port of Mundra. In view of Land Ceiling Act in Gujarat, various agricultural lands were purchased in the names of different farmers and then such lands were transferred to Adani Group of Companies and assessee was one of the such agent. The assessee purchased agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 481 & 543 situated at village Beraja, Mundra Taluka on 21.05.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 52,08,375/- vide sale deed registered as Document No. 3993 of 2008.

Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Rajkot. The assessee explained the above land transactions. The contentions and evidences filed by the assessee were rejected, as they are in the nature of additional evidences which were not filed before the Assessing Officer and conditions of Rule 46A is not satisfied, thereby rejected the assessee’s appeal.

Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1.0 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.0 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-l, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] erred on facts as also in law in not deciding ground of appeal related to the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, initiation of action u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment made on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. 3.0 The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 52,08,305/- being alleged unexplained investment in agriculture land situated R.S.No.481 and R.S.No.543 at Village Beraja Tal. Mundra. The addition retained is totally unjustified and uncalled for and deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. 4.0 The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in rejecting evidences additional (evidences (in spite of making specific request for admission of the same) furnished during the appellant stage which goes to the root of the matter. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the same and give justice to the appellant.

Per contra, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue Mr. B.D. Gupta has no serious objection in setting aside the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules provides for admission of additional evidences before the Tribunal for the first time. It is seen from record, the assessee could not produce the same for reasons beyond its control and therefore in order to meet the ends of justice, we think it fit to entertain the additional documents filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the same to the file of the Assessing Officer who is to adjudicate the various additional documents filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should cooperate with the Assessing Officer by Page No 5 Shri Swaroopsinh Vrudhaji Sodha vs. ITO producing all the additional evidences before the ld. A.O. and get adjudicated its grievances.

With this observation, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.