SONEA DHIR,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-32 (1), NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mrs. Sonea Dhir, 310, D Ostwal & Associates, F-14, Competent House, Cannought Place, New Delhi-110001 PAN-AEXPD6327E vs CIT(A), Circle-32(1), New Delhi
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A),
National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-11/10424/2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 27.12.2018 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act for Assessment
Year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income, declaring income of INR 59,97,501/- on 04.02.2012 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee had income from house property, profits & gains from business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. The information received from DDIT (I&CI), New Delhi that vide Sale Deed dated 14.08.2012, assessee sold a property situated at Plot No.D-1, Saket District
Centre, Saket, New Delhi to Shri Ranjit Kumar and Smt. Ritu
Kumar for a total sale consideration of INR 7,00,00,000/-. The payment of INR 7,00,00,000/- was received by the assessee through cheques issued on different dates and deposited in her bank account maintained with HDFC Bank. According to the AO, the said property was purchased by the assessee in the year under appeal and sources of purchases consideration remained unexplained therefore, after recording the reasons, case of the assessee was reopened. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain why not provisions of section 50C be invoked as there was difference between the declared consideration and the stamp value determined by the respective authorities on the sale of other two properties and accordingly, the amount of capital gain on sale of property declared by the assessee in her ITR for Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14 be changed. After considering the replies, additions/ disallowances of INR 1,03,04,361/- were made u/s 50C and by disallowing the interest expenses. Against this order an appeal was filed before ld.
CIT(A) however, due to non-compliance, ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dt. 30.04.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds raised by the assessee:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent, ex-Parte without appreciating the fact that the notice sent on email was in dump/update/spam mail box and also without any massage alert, hence AR could not made submissions on facts as well as on law in absence of knowledge of the notice. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent by initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 merely because he felt that he failed to do what he has ought to have done i.e. to issue of notice u/s 143(2) for normal scrutiny assessment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent in framing impugned assessment order without assuming juri iction as law and without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and reopening of the case is bad in law and beyond the juri iction of the Ld. A.O. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent in making the additions, since other additions cannot survive, when no additions were made on the basis of reasons recorded, as held in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. V. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del) by the juri ictional High Court of Delhi. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent in framing impugned assessment order, by rejecting the request made for referring the case to Valuation Officer by the Assessee, hence violative of natural justice and liable to be quashed. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT (A) erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the respondent as per law and on facts in making an aggregate addition of Rs. 55,30,041/- (Rs. 20,11,341/- + 35,18,700/-) by invoking provisions of Section 50C being difference between the actual sale consideration and rate according to the