RAJ RANI,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 628 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Raj Rani बनाम The ITO H.NO. 82, Village Rasulpur, Sirsa Sirsa Haryana-125060 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BZTPR2247H अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Navneet Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rittun Sahuwala, C.A (Virtual Mode) राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/07/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/07/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 06/03/2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

assessing officer justified in proceeding with section 147 to reopen the assessment, then there would be no relevance to section 153A, which was inserted in to the Act to deal exclusively with search cases. The legislators in their wisdom clearly spell out the provisions of law applicable to search cases by using the word shall to begin with section 153A, made it mandatory that the assessing officer bound to issue notice under section 153A or 153C, thereafter proceed to assess or reassess the total income, where search conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132А. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessing officer is not justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 and his order is legal and arbitrary." Hence the assessment in order issued u/s 147 is without jurisdiction or says the assessing officer is not justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 and his order is legal and arbitrary." 5. That the Ld. AO make addition only on the basis of statement of verification of sign, but on the another hand the Ld. ADI (Invest.), Rohtak does not try to disclose the true facts of the Ikrarnama while doing investigation via summon under section 131(1A) of Income Tax Act-1961, where the Ld. Officer just ask to confirm the sign only but does not disclose detail of the Ikrarnama to the assessee and does not ask any question about the facts and circumstances written in Ikrarnama. So the intension of the Ld. ADI (Invest.), Rohtakwas not judiciary in nature, but the CIT(A) also ignore above stated point. 6. That the Ld. AO makes assessment on the basis of Ikrarnama, but the validity of Ikrarnama is itself in doubt, because only single party signed the said Ikrarnama, so It can never be possible to make any contract without acceptance of offer. 6.1 That the Ikrarnama is not registered in front of the Tehsildar but it's only ordinary Ikrarnama and does not have any legal position in the law or say not sustain in the eye of law. 6.2 That the Ikrarnama was created for offer tosale the property at price stated in Ikrarnamawith time frame of 6 month i.e. registry date was 20.04.2015, but offer was not accepted by the purchasingparty and makes counter offer amount of Rs.1.60 cr. with the condition of on the spot registry, assessee accepted the offer for registry on dated 07.01.2015, so it can be say that the validity of the Ikrarnama is not correct, itself not acceptable as true, and not sustain in the eye of law. Hence the LD. AO does not apply mind and investigate documents on record before issue of assessment order, hence order should be quashed. 7. That the LD. AO makes assessment without considering the facts on record such as,

7.1 That the Ld. AO ignore construction cost of building as when building was purchased its having only one room but while sale it's having two floors completely constructed, but the LD AO does not consider the facts and cost of development before calculating income under the head capital gain. 7. That the Ld. AO completely ignores stamp duty, brokerage and registration expenses paid by the assessee at the time of purchase while computation of income or say stamp duty, registration expenses and brokerage belongs to eligible expenses which are allowed as expenses as per provision of I T Act-1961, but the Ld. AO makes wrong calculation and does not provide any benefit while calculation of income as per provision of I T Act-1961. That the CIT(A) completely ignore above point while making his decision, so the nature of the assessment order along with decision of CIT(A) was bad in law and should be set aside.

3.1 During the post-survey investigation, Shri Pardeep Kumar, partner of the purchasing firm, admitted that the contents of the IKRARNAMA were correct. The assessee, in her statement recorded under Section 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the ADIT (Investigation), Rohtak, also identified and confirmed her signatures appearing on the Ikrarnama.

3.2 As the assessee had not filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2015–16 and had not disclosed the capital gain arising from the transfer of the property, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act after obtaining the requisite approval from the competent authority. Notice under Section 148 was accordingly issued and duly served upon the assessee.

3.3 Despite the issuance of several statutory notices under Section 142(1), along with show-cause notices, the assessee failed to furnish any response, explanation, or supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the reassessment ex parte to the best of his judgment under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act.

3.4 The Assessing Officer observed that the IKRARNAMA had been duly signed by all the sellers, their respective husbands, and an independent witness. Its contents had also been accepted by the purchaser as well as verified by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000 recorded in the registered sale deed represented only the amount paid through banking channels, while the balance consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000 had been paid in cash with a view to suppressing the actual sale consideration.

3.5 For computation of the capital gain, the sale consideration attributable to the one-half share held by three co-owners, including the assessee, was determined at Rs.1,70,00,000. Against the combined cost of acquisition of Rs.19,11,000, the Assessing Officer computed short-term capital gain at Rs.1,50,89,000. Since the assessee held a one- third share in the said one-half portion of the property, her proportionate share of the short-term capital gain was calculated at

Rs.50,29,666. The said amount was added to her income as undisclosed short-term capital gain, and her total income was assessed at Rs.50,29,670.

4.1 The CIT(A) further noted that the impounded Ikrarnama and the registered sale deed had been confronted to the sellers and purchaser during the investigation, and the assessee had specifically admitted her signatures on the Ikrarnama. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Hemalatha v. Kasthuri (2023), the CIT(A) held that an unregistered agreement to sell could have evidentiary value in determining the actual transaction value between the parties.

4.2 It was also observed that the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or produced any evidence to rebut the contents of the Ikrarnama. A mere denial during appellate proceedings, unsupported by any material, was insufficient to displace the documentary evidence and statements recorded during the investigation. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the assessment order, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.50,29,666 as short-term capital gain and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

6.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ikrarnama did not represent a concluded contract, as the proposal mentioned therein was not accepted by the purchaser and the property was ultimately transferred through the registered sale deed for Rs.1.60 crore. It was also argued that the decision in R. Hemalatha v. Kasthuri related to the admissibility of an unregistered agreement in a civil suit and could not, by itself, establish receipt of undisclosed sale consideration under the Income- tax Act.

6.2 The Ld. AR also challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the material was found in proceedings conducted against a third party and, therefore, the applicability of the special provisions relating to third-party material required examination. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer had not allowed the cost of construction and improvement, stamp duty, registration charges and brokerage while computing the capital gain. Since these grounds were not properly adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A), the matter was requested to be restored for fresh consideration.

sale consideration of Rs.3.40 crore, whereas the registered sale deed reflected only Rs.1.60 crore. The assessee held a one-sixth share in the property.

7.1 The Ld. DR submitted that the purchaser had accepted the contents of the Ikrarnama and the assessee had also admitted her signatures thereon in her statement recorded under section 131(1A) of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee had neither filed her return of income nor complied with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the assessment was rightly completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act.

7.2 According to the Ld. DR, the Assessing Officer had tangible material indicating escapement of income and the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly upheld the reassessment and the addition, particularly when the assessee had failed to produce any evidence rebutting the contents of the Ikrarnama.

8.1 On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that no clear finding has been recorded as to whether the assessee had admitted the Ikrarnama.

8.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has also not adequately adjudicated the assessee’s challenge to the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the applicability of the judicial precedents relied upon, and the contention that the Ikrarnama did not result in a concluded transaction. Further, no specific finding has been recorded on the assessee’s claim for deduction of construction and improvement cost, stamp duty, registration charges and brokerage, which have a direct bearing on the computation of capital gain.

8.3 In these facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) shall examine all the grounds raised by the assessee, including the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the evidentiary value of the Ikrarnama, the actual sale consideration, and the admissibility of the expenditure claimed while computing the capital gains. The Ld. CIT(A) shall also examine the applicability and legal effect of the presumption contained in section 292C of the Income-tax Act, including whether such statutory presumption is attracted to the facts of the present case and its impact on the evidentiary value of the impounded Ikrarnama, after considering the rebuttal, if any, furnished by the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

8.4 The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues, which are left open for fresh adjudication.

Order pronounced on 27/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- मनोज कुमार अ�वाल लिलत कुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9A CHANDIGARH