SAVITA GUPTA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(3)(1), ETAH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 110/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Savita Gupta, Ahata Vs. ITO, Ward 4(3)(1), Railway Road, Bhannamal, Gandhi Market, Etah-207001 Etah-207001 PAN : AIDPG5189R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Harsh Agarwal, C.A. Department by Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr (DR)

Date of hearing 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 21.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2012-13/10511387 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC (Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal against the penalty order dated 30.06.2025 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposing penalty of Rs. 20,44,762/- 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee filed her return of income, for A.Y. 2013-14 on 21.12.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 2,15,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of

ITA No.110/Agr/2026 information of sale of immovable property amounting to Rs. 75,00,000/-. The assessment order was passed by making an addition of Rs. 71,25,807/- u/s. 144/147 of the Act as long term capital gain vide assessment order dated 18.12.2019. The penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) was passed on 30.06.2025 by imposing penalty of Rs. 20,44,762/-. 3. Assessee filed an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal and upheld the penalty imposed by the assessing officer. 4. Appellant assessee has raised following grounds under appeal: “(1) BECAUSE, the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is bad in law, arbitrary, perverse, non- speaking and liable to be quashed. (2) BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. (3) BECAUSE, even otherwise, an order passed without effectively disposing of the grounds raised by the appellant is in infraction of section 250(6) of the Act and as such, order so made is otherwise too illegal, invalid and a vitiated order. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE (4) BECAUSE, upon due consideration of the facts and in the circumstance of the case the AO in imposing penalty of Rs.20,44,762/-under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (5) BECAUSE, the authorities below have not judiciously considered that the addition came to be made by taking aid of deeming fiction provided under the 'Act' in terms of section 50C of the Act. (6) BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts if the AO was not satisfied with the consideration stated in the Registered purchase deed the AO before making the addition ought to have referred the matter to the valuation cell to ascertain the fair market value of the property. (7) BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below were not justified in not allowing deduction of Indexed Cost of Improvement of Rs.13,42,340/- in respect of property sold for the calculation of Long-Term Capital Gain. (8) BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below were not justified in not allowing the deduction under section 54 for Cost of Purchase and Cost of Construction of Residential House being 2 | P a g e

ITA No.110/Agr/2026 Rs.57,24,000/-out of the sale proceeds for the calculation of Long-Term Capital Gain. (9) BECAUSE, before drawing adverse inference in respect of the Agreements furnished during the course of quantum appellate proceedings the CIT(A) ought to have confronted the alleged discrepancies on the basis of which ultimate findings are recorded in the appellate order. (10) BECAUSE, before drawing adverse conclusion in the matter the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given opportunity to the Assessee to put forth its case and ought to have examined the Contractor who carried out the Contract. In absence of examination of Contractor the assumption drawn on unilateral basis cannot be sustained, which may be a basis for charging Tax but deeming provision alone do not provide a valid and sound ground for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act'.” 5. Perused the records and heard ld representative for the assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue.

Order pronounced on – 21.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21.05.2026

3 | P a g e

ITA No.110/Agr/2026 Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e