USHA RANI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-71(1), RANGE 76, DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2774/धिल्ली/2026 (धि.ि. 2017-18) ITA No.2774/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18)

Usha Rani, 28, Vikas Sheel Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi 110085 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: ACDPR-5545-A बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-71(1), Range 76, Civic Centre, ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Ashutosh Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुििाई की धिधर्थ/Date of hearing : 20/05/2026 घोषणा की धिधर्थ/Date of pronouncement : 20/05/2026 आिेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 27.11.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 2774/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) 3. Shri Ashutosh Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that a residential property i.e. DDA plot bearing No. 492, Block Pocket C-2, Sector-34, Rohini, Delhi, measuring 32 sq mts., jointly owned by the assessee and her husband Shri Kuldeep Raj was sold for a total consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-. The sale proceeds were equally received by the assessee and her husband, i.e., Rs.7,00,000/- each. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the assessee had fairly stated that the total sale consideration received was Rs.14,00,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) adopted stamp duty value and made addition of Rs.22,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee, without referring valuation to the DVO. Further, the AO failed to take note of the fact that the residential property sold was jointly owned by the assessee and her husband and the sale consideration was received in equal proportion by joint owners. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144D of the Act, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings dismissed appeal of the assessee. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) as the email address given in Form No. 35 was of the husband of the assessee, who died on 19.01.2024. He further pointed that all notices issued by the CIT(A) were after the demise of assessee’s husband. The assessee being an old lady of 76 years of age was not aware of the proceedings before the CIT(A). Hence, no submissions could be made by the assessee before the CIT(A).

3 ITA No. 2774/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. Considering entire facts of the case, I am of considered view that the documents furnished by the assessee were not examined by the authorities below. Without commenting on merits of the issue, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee before passing the order, in accordance with law.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्याधयक सिस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, धििांक/Dated 22/05/2026 NV/-

प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रधििािी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आय.अपी.अधि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 4. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. 5.

ITA No. 2774/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18)

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI