DAVINDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The order sheet entry shows that the assessee was not appearing on the past occasions. The notice issued through RPAD fixing the hearing for 2 ITA.No.3587/Del./2019 Shri Davinder Singh, Delhi. 29.11.2021 was returned by the Postal Authorities with the remark “Left without address”. The assessee has also not taken any steps to intimate the change of address, if any. Under these circumstances, I deem it proper to decide the issue on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R.

Although a number of grounds have been raised 3. by the assessee, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and thereby, sustaining the various additions made by the A.O.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 05.08.2013 declaring income of Rs.2,42,290/-. The A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 23.03.2016 determining total income of assessee at Rs.41,40,720/- wherein he made addition of Rs.38,98,430/- on account of long term capital gains in respect of sale of a property.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. I find from the details that the assessee had purchased a property for Rs.35,000/- in F.Y. 1985-86 and sold the same for Rs.80 lakhs in A.Y. 2013-2014. While claiming deduction /exemption under section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee determined the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.79,78,860/-. As an alternative plea the benefit of purchase of a residential house in February, 2015 for Rs.50 lakhs was claimed under section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since the assessee could not establish the claim under section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and it claimed to have spent Rs.15,55,000/- towards cost on improvement from F.Y. 1985-86 to F.Y. 1994-95, the A.O. rejected the same in absence of any details or evidence to incur such expenditure. Further there was no approval of such scale of renovation/construction from Local Authorities. The 4 ITA.No.3587/Del./2019 Shri Davinder Singh, Delhi. valuation report dated 25.12.2012 was also rejected by the A.O. in absence of any explanation from the Valuer in response to notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding the basis of his valuation. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. in view of various discrepancies mentioned by the A.O. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, I uphold the same. The grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.