IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.125/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2006-07)

(Hybrid Hearing)

Kalindi Jayendra Ranpara. Vs. The ITO Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot.

Shrungar Jewellers, Soni Bazar Main Road, Rajkot-360001.

Öथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABGPR6315Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R.

Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28/ 03/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, AM Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), vide order dated 20/02/2024, which in turn arises, out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows:

(1). The learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of pass the order u/s 143(3) rws 254 of the I.T. Act, whereby assessed the total income of Rs.32,66,990/- as against the returned income of Rs.4,888/-is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.

(2). The learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect applied the section 50C of the I T Act for under valuation of the property and made the addition of Rs.32,62,100/- is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.

(3). The learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of passing the order totally on surmises and conjecture basis and mentioned the facts in body of order which is very far away from the truth and against the facts of the case and against the rule of natural justice is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.

(4). The learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234 A/B/C is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.

(5). The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.274 rws 271(1)(c) is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.

6). Your assessee reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 19.12.2011 making addition of Rs. 32,66,990/-. The assessee`s second assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, dated 22.12.2017, wherein addition of Rs.32,62,100/- was made on sale of immovable property, by the assessing officer. The brief facts of the case are that the assessing officer was in possession of information that the assessee had sold an immovable property in FY 2005-06 for consideration of Rs.3,80,000/- whereas stamp duty valuation authority assessed the value of the property at Rs. 36,42,100/-. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 19.12.2011 making addition of Rs. 32,66,990/-. The assessee filed an appeal against above said assessment order wherein CIT (Appeal)-2, Rajkot allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against the Order of CIT (Appeal), the department filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench passed an order on 14.07.2016 allowing the appeal o