LATE URMILA USHAKANT SHETH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MRS. DAKSHA SANGHAVI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ["the learned CIT(A), NFAC) erred in restoring the matter once again to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not quashing the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 despite the fact that the learned Assessing Officer ("the learned AO") completed the assessment without following the earlier directions specifically given by the Hon'ble ITAT in respect of the date of handing over the possession of the property and the valuation. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in mentioning that "the assessee did not file any submissions on the ground that she did not receive any notice from the department" despite the fact that the appellant had raised a specific ground being ground no. 2 before the learned CIT(A), NFAC on the same issue and also mentioned the same in the written submissions filed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned AO has failed to provide inspection of case records and the other information and documents in respect of assessment proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 despite specifically requesting him to do so thereby violating the principle of natural justice to allow the appellant to effectively defend her case. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned AO in particular has not furnished any part of the assessment records or any record to corroborate the fact that the notice dated 02/03/2016 u/s 142(1) was served by affixture or the assessment order was despatched to or served upon the appellant within the time prescribed u/s 153(3) for completion of the assessment. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NIA erred in not quashing the assessment order despite the fact that the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 was completed without issuing any notice u/s 142(1). Even according to the learned AO, only one alleged notice dated 2nd March, 2016 was issued which was not served on your appellant but was allegedly served only by affixture. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the learned AO has erred in not serving the best judgement assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 within the prescribed time limit. The assessment order was served after 3.5 years of passing the order and 3 years after expiry of the limitation period expiring on 31st December, 2016 and that also to the authorized representative of your appellant when he made inquires about the assessment. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not considering the 1st proviso to sub-section (1) of section 50C inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01/04/2017 which is curative in nature.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the learned AO has erred in not making any inquiry regarding handing over of possession on 5th May, 2005 to the Developers as per the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the learned AO has erred in not referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation officer (DVO) as per the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the learned AO has erred in adopting stamp duty value of land for making assessment and not considering the fact that the valuation had already been approved by the appropriate authority at the time of obtaining certificate u/s 269UL in July 2001 i.c., Prior to the registration of the Development Agreement on 26th October, 2001. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the learned AO has erred in assessing the capital gains once again in the current year i.e., A.Y.2007-08 although the same had already been assessed u/s 143(3) in A.Y.2006-07. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the learned AO has erred in applying provisions of Section 50C although the Registered Development Agreement has been entered into by the appellant on 26th October, 2001, whereas Section 50C has been introduced from 01/04/2003 and hence, section 50C is not applicable to your appellant. 14. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard by way of a video conferencing despite being specifically requested for it.”

Brief facts of the case are as under: i. The assessee expired on 31.08.2007, and therefore, her return for AY 2007-08 was filed by Mrs. Daksha Sanghvi as her legal representative on 31.07.2007, declaring total income of Rs. 3,25,581/-. ii. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.12.2009 determining the total income at Rs. 3,14,00,889/- after invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act for computing long-