ISHWAR DAYAL (L/H OF PRASHADI SINGH),GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), GHAZIABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY[Assessment Year 2010-11]
PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 20.03.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 147/144 and that too without assuming juri iction as per law and without complying with the the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 147/144, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,75,000/- when the alleged notices under section 148, 142(1) and 144 were not served to the appellant. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,75,000/- allegedly on the ground that the agriculture land sold by the appellant was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings. 5. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 89,75,000/- being the entire sale proceeds of agricultural land allegedly on the ground that the agricultural land was a capital asset is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information, during the financial year 2009-10, the assessee has sold immovable property for Rs.89,75,000/-. As there was no compliance of verification letter, proceedings under section 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 were initiated and the notices were issued as per details given under: Sr. No. Section under which notices issued Notice dated Date fixed for compliance remarks 1 148 30.03.2017 - The notice was duly served on the address of the assessee by the postal authorities on 31.03.2017 2 142(1) 22.06.2017 30.06.2017 No Compliance made 3 144 30.11.2017 06.12.2017 The notice was duly served on the address of the assessee by the postal authorities. But no compliance made.
1. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that no return of income has been filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148. Since, the assessee did not make any compliance of the above mentioned notices issued from this office, final notice under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued as per details given above but no compliance has been made by the assessee till date. Under the circumstances the assessment is being completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information available on the record. As per the details provided by the Sub-