SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD
The appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F
price and the cost of acquisition without taking the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition. Further, the Act in this regard does not provide any distinction between the residential house used for residence as capital asset or as the trading asset.”
9. From the above we find, that the ld. PCIT has dismissed the assessee’s contention of the property
