SANJU SINHA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -

For that the assessing officer has computed capital gain on hypothetical sell consideration without looking to the fact available on record and also without looking to the provision of section 45 read with section 2 (47) of the Income Tax Act, as such, the ld. Assessing officer and the ld. Commissioner had levied tax on hypothetical income which is impermissible under the Act.

For that the Assessing Officer erred in computing capital gain in the assessment year 2015-16 as the assessee neither transferred nor relinquish the right and title in the land nor has received sell consideration, as such, addition made on the basis of capital gain is bad and against the provision of law.

For that the appellant has taken specific ground regarding illegality in initiating proceeding under section 147 of the Income Tax Act but this issue has not been considered nor adjudicated in the ex-party appellate order as such, the impugned order is bad and illegal.

For that the proceeding initiated under section 147 of the income tax act for re-assessment is illegal and without jurisdiction because the assessing officer has no reason to believe within the meaning of section 147 that the appellant had actually transferred assets within the meaning of section 2(47) of the IT Act and had either earned income or income were accrued in the assessment year in question under capital gain.

For that the assessing office neither recorded valid reason nor the JCIT and Commissioner accorded valid sanction as prescribed undersection 151 of the Act, as such, whole of the re-assessment proceeding and levy of tax is bad in law.

For that the assessing officer had not deducted index cost while making assessment therefore, the computation made by the assessing officer is incorrect.

For that the order of assessment as well as appellate order is bad and unreasonable in view of the fact that the impugned order and order of assessment is self- contradictory as the authority below has himself accepted that the value of land was 13,50,589/ and the value of construction as per deed of agreement was 20,91,600/ but they had levied tax taking the income of Rs.20,91,600/- without considering the index cost.

For that the appellant had already entered into a partition agreement with her family members, as such, the proceeding initiated against appellant is bad and illegal.

For that no notice under section 143 (2) had been issued and severed by the assessing officer.

For that the grounds taken herein above are not prejudicial to each other.

For that any other grounds may be submitted at the time of hearing.”

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record available on record. We observed that the assessee is an individual and assessed for A.Y. 2015-16 u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 26th December, 2019, wherein certain additions have been made in the hands of the assessee for the alleged suppressed capital gain. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) and after filing of the appeal the same was migrated to the NFAC in terms of notification no. 76 of

We therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and observing that there was reasonable cause on part of the assessee for not appearing before the ld. CIT (A) on few dates of hearing on account of Covid-19 restrictions and also in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised on merits to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for necessary adjudication for which reasonable opportunity should be provided to the assessee to furnish the reply and file relevant details and evidences if needed

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.