LAKSHMI CHAND,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

Date of Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2023 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabd, dated 17.02.2017 in Appeal No.137/2015-16 relating to the A.Y. 2008-09.

2.1. Assessee is an individual. A.O. has noted that information was received from Sub Registrar, Ballabgrah, Faridabad that assessee and others have received of Rs. 15,26,50,000/- on 07.06.2007 as sale consideration from M/s Green Valley Housing & Land Development Pvt. Ltd. on sale of land. He has further noted that out of total sale consideration, assessee’s share was of Rs. 2,18,17,708/-. According to A.O., since the land in question was within the Municipal limits of Faridabad, it was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) and chargeable to tax u/s.45(5) of the Act. It was noted by the A.O. that the assessee has not filed his return of income declaring the aforesaid sale consideration. A.O. therefore issued notices u/s. 148 dated 15.03.2010 to the assessee. A.O. has noted that no return of income was filed by the assessee. Thereafter notices u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) were issued and served but there was no response from the assessee. A.O. thereafter framed assessment u/s. 144 vide order dated 29.10.2010 and determined the total income at Rs. 2,13,17,708/-.

2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 17.02.2017 dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

1. That the appellant is a small farmer owning small agricultural land who does not know Income Tax Law and blindly trusted on Chartered Accountant Mr. Shyam Sunder Mangla, M/s Shyam Sunder Mangla & Co, having office at Sco- 201 shopping center sector - 8 Faridabad (India) -121006. The appellant has given all the necessary documents & information to CA Mr. Manga who has not submitted return of income, all the information & documents during the assessment & Appeal proceedings as per the Income Tax Law and did not performed his professional duties and did not give proper advice to appellant. In view of these facts, kindly allow an opportunity to the appellant to explain the case and to submit all the necessary information & documents to the Ed. Assessing Officer.

2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not right in conforming the impugned order framed by the Assessing Officer in treating the whole sales consideration of Agriculture Land and old house on agricultural land amounted to Rs.2,13,17,710/- on estimated basis as taxable income from capital gain where as the appellant has reinvested the sales proceeds in Agriculture Land & Construction of Residential property and no exemption is allowed to the appellant.

3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not right in confirming the impugned order framed by assessing officer in treating the indexed cost Rs.5,00,000/- on estimated basis by stating "subject to change" and not considered market value as on 01-04- 1981 of agricultural land & old house.

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Ld. Assessing Officer have erred in calculating correct taxable income and correct indexed cost of agricultural land and old house inherited from parents.

5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not right in conforming the impugned order framed by the Assessing Officer who has not considered the deductions/ exemptions allowable under the head Capital gain.

6. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not right in confirming the impugned order framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 without serving mandatory notice.

7. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not right in confirming the impugned order framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 in serving the notice U/s.142(1) dated 16/03/2009.

8. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not right in confirming the impugned order framed by the Assessing Officer without following the provisions us.147 and 148. The appellant has not received any notice us.148 of Income Tax Act.

at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

4. Before us, Ld.AR pointed to ground no. 1 and submitted that assessee had submitted all the necessary documents and information to CA Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, for submission before authorities but the C.A did not perform his duties nor gave proper advice to the assessee. He therefore submitted that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to explain the case and the assessee would submit all the required details called for by the A.O. He further submitted that identical issue arising out of sale of same land arose in the case of other family members, Sh. Karan Singh, Shri Ram Swaroop, Shri Bir Singh etc. and on identical facts the coordinate bench of Tribunal has restored the issue back to the file of A.O. for the deciding the issue afresh. He pointed to the recent order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Karan Singh vs. ITO in ITA 4376/Del/2017 order dated 28.02.2022 the copy of which is placed at page no 46 to 51 of the paper book and pointed to the relevant findings of the Tribunal. He therefore submitted that since the facts of the assessee are identical to the facts of other family members, the matter in assessee’s case may also be restored back to A.O.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.01.2023.