RAJENDRA SINGH BAGGA,DAMOH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 187/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.
For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69
147 read with section 144 dated 30.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are under:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex- party order without providing adequate opportunity as only three dates for hearing were fixed and that too in the peak periods of filling of tax audits, income tax returns
