Praful Parshuram Vaity vs ITO-1, Palghar, Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Praful Parshuram Vaity, did not file an income return for the assessment year 2013-14 as required under section 139(1) of the Act. Consequently, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 18.03.2020, but the assessee did not comply with the notice. Therefore, the assessment under section 147 was finalized ex-parte, adding Rs. 21,99,000/- as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A, Rs. 40,00,000/- as unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property, and Rs. 72,00,000/- as income from undisclosed capital gain on the sale of immovable property under section 50C of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), but the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance. The assessee argued that they did not receive the notices of hearing because they were issued to an old, inactive email address. The Tribunal considered this and decided to restore the case to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) for adjudication on merit, providing the assessee with three more opportunities to be heard.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the learned CIT-A erred in dismissing the appeal?
• 2. Whether the learned CIT-A ought to have held that reopening assessment of the appellant u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 is bad in law?
• 3. Whether the learned CIT-A erred in confirming Rs. 72,00,000/- as undisclosed capital gain?
• 4. Whether the learned CIT-A, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have allowed expenditure in Connection with transfer, cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as deduction in computing capital gain?
• 5. Whether the learned CIT-A, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have allowed exemption u/s 54B/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
• 6. Whether the learned CIT-A, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition of Rs. 21,99,000/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Mahendrabhai Patel vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(2) Ahmedabad

  Ahmedabad bench

• Tawfiqur Rahman

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-2014Allowed

• Rohit Manchanda Vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Rakeshkumar Jayantilal Patel

  Ahmedabad bench

• Rina Ray

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019Allowed

• Udayachal Goregaon Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench