SADHNA SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 40(4), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 132/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of the order and for the sake of complete justice, decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to consider the facts, collect relevant information, and provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which sustained disallowances made by the Assessing Officer regarding indexed cost of improvement and acquisition. Notices were issued to the assessee, but no submissions were filed, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowances based on an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.05.2025

(Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sadhna Sharma, vs. ITO, Ward 40 (4), C/o Malik & Co. (Advisors & Advocates), Delhi. S – 258, Greater Kailash – 1, New Delhi – 110 048. (PAN : ATVP0517Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 25.07.2023 for Assessment Year 2016-17 raising following grounds of appeal :-

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant-Assessee denies her liability to be assessed at an income of Rs.1,20,87,440/- against the returned income of Rs.6,19,650/- and thus denies its liability to pay tax, interest and/or penalty thereon.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making and upholding the addition of Rs.59,53,333/- on account of difference between SDV & the sale consideration.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.47,07,399/-.

4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld, CIT(A) erred in disallowing the indexed cost of improvement of Rs.47,07,399/-.

5.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.8,07,057/-.

6.

That the Appellant-Assessee denies its liability to charge with interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961..”

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We proceeded to adjudicate the issue with the assistance of ld. DR of the Revenue.

3.

At the time of hearing, it was observed that notices u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 11.07.2019, 03.01.2020, 12.02.2020 and 11.02.2021 asking the assessee to file her submissions. Thereafter, under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, notice u/s 250 was issued on 20.04.2023, 26.06.2023 and 10.07.2023 directing the assessee to file its submissions on or before 01.05.2023, 06.07.2023 and 17.07.2023 respectively. However, assessee has not complied all those notices and ld. CIT (A) proceeded to dispose off the appeal on the basis of material available on record and sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on indexed cost of improvement and index cost of acquisition.

4.

Ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →