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

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Rajendrakumar Motiram Patel, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dated 17.05.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee argued that the order was passed ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which is against the principles of natural justice and equity. The assessee also contested the addition of Rs.16,34,391/- made by the Assessing Officer, the confirmation of the addition of Rs.16,34,391/- made by the Assessing Officer computing the 25 percent share of appellant in excess of value of immovable property adopted by Stamp Value Authority over purchase consideration as alleged Notional Income u/s.56(2)(x) of the I. T. Act, 1961, and the confirmation of the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the purchase value of the immovable property as per the value adopted by the stamp duty authority at Rs.1,86,37,275/- as against the actual purchase value of the said property at Rs.1,10,00,000/- and stamp duty of Rs.10,99,9287- adopted by the appellant in the return of income filed while computing his 25 percent share in the same. The assessee further argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the assessee has violated the provisions of sec.56(2)(x) of the Act and has under reported his income and therefore, penalty provision u/s.270A(l) attracts. The assessee also contested the completion of the assessment withou…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an Ex Parte Order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
• 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.16,34,391/- made by the Assessing Officer computing the 25 percent share of appellant in excess of value of immovable property adopted by Stamp Value Authority over purchase consideration as alleged Notional Income u/s.56(2)(x) of the I. T. Act, 1961.
• 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the purchase value of the immovable property as per the value adopted by the stamp duty authority at Rs.1,86,37,275/- as against the actual purchase value of the said property at Rs.1,10,00,000/- and stamp duty of Rs.10,99,9287- adopted by the appellant in the return of income filed while computing his 25 percent share in the same.
• 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the assessee has violated the provisions of sec.56(2)(x) of the Act and has under reported his income and therefore, penalty provision u/s.270A(l) attracts.
• 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in completing the assessment without referring the valuation of the property in question to the DVO and making additions on the basis of value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Raghvendra Singh

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019Allowed

• Poonam Lakhmani vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Kartik Buildcare Pvt. Ltd vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

  Delhi bench

• ABBS Gulam Rasool Maknojia vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai bench

• Aero Pack Products Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

• Rashmi Seventilal Vakharia vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai “D” Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed