Dipa Prakashkumar Velani vs. Assessment Unit through Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee based on information received through the Non-Filer Management System and Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, which showed that the assessee had purchased immovable properties worth ₹90,00,000/- and ₹42,33,000/-, and had sold property for ₹45,00,000/- during the year under consideration, however, no return of income was filed by the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 on 31.03.2022, and in response, the assessee filed a return on 04.08.2022 declaring total income of ₹65,610/-. The assessee submitted that a residential flat valued at ₹90,00,000/- was purchased by her husband, Shri Prakash J. Velani, and her name was included in the conveyance deed. The assessee submitted the flat was funded through her husband's loan from ICICI Bank and his own savings. Regarding the plot purchased for ₹42,33,000/- and sold for ₹45,00,000/-, the assessee stated that she acquired the plot in her own name and that the purchase consideration was paid out of the sale proceeds received from Mr. Rajendrasinh Chudasama, the buyer of the said plot. The assessee submitted a cost of improvement of ₹2,08,780/- was incurred and declared short term capital gains of ₹58,220/- in her return. However, the Assessing Officer rejected her explanation and found her claims to be unsubstantiated.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the notice issued u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2022 and order passed u/s.148A(d) dated 31.03.2022 are bad in law for want of acquiring valid jurisdiction?
• 2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in dismissing the appeal of appellant for non-prosecution?
• 3. Whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in confirming the addition of Rs.43,33,000/- u/s.69 of the Act being alleged unexplained investment?
• 4. Whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of taxing short term capital gain of Rs.2,08,780/-?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Praveen Tyagi vs. ITO, Ward 2 (1)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Partly Allowed

• Vidhi Pragnesh Modi vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• ITA No.6816/Mum/2025; Avani Azad Parikh, Mumbai

  Mumbai benchAY 2015Dismissed

• Kishan Lal Vs. The NFAC

  Delhi ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

• Krishan Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed