Hiteshkumar Ishwarbhai Patel vs. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 27.04.2019, declaring a total income of Rs.5,53,370/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the purchase of immovable property worth Rs.1,99,73,500/- with unexplained source of funds. The AO completed the assessment on 24.12.2019, assessing the income at Rs.2,52,49,184/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), but failed to provide submissions due to personal reasons, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 15.03.2024, confirming the AO's assessment. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the jurisdiction of the assessing officer under section 147 of the Act.
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the jurisdiction of the assessing officer under section 147 of the Act despite the fact that the AO failed to pass a disposal order against the objections raised by the appellant.
• 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer even though the assessment order was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
• 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.22,00,000/- under section 69A being the payment done by the appellant for the purchase of immovable property.
• 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- being an amount received by the appellant from Shri Harjitsingh under section 269SS of the Income Tax Act.
• 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs.1,73,85,814 as capital gains.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Santosh Maruti Pawar vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune

  Pune bench

• Rajendrakumar Motiram Patel vs The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1) Ahmedabad

  Ahmedabad bench

• MANI SRIDHAR (Vs.) CIT (A)

• Praful Parshuram Vaity vs ITO-1, Palghar, Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Pareshkumar Patil vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• HITCHKI CREATION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

  DELHI BENCH 'C', NEW DELHI benchAY 2011-12Allowed