BALBIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6388/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2021AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which sustained the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had followed a previous order concerning the assessee's brother, who was a co-owner of the property. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this approach.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment of the assessee based on information about the sale of land and issued a notice under Section 147. The assessee filed a return declaring a small income, but failed to provide a proper explanation for the sale proceeds of Rs. 97,62,499/-. The AO made additions for long-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 42,89,119/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the taxability of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of land, and whether the additions made by the AO were justified in the absence of a proper explanation from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 44AF,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

Hearing: 29.11.2021Pronounced: 29.11.2021

ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 10.12.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi, relevant to the A.Y. 2010-2011.

2.

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 date of hearing for 2 ITA.No.6388/Del./2019 Shri Balbir Singh, New Delhi. 29.11.2021 was returned by the Postal Authorities with the remark “Upon enquiry it came to light that nobody resides in the given 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.

1.

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 of Rs.42,89,119/- made by the A.O. in the order passed under section 144/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of long term capital gains.

4.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. On the basis of information received that assessee has sold land at Village of Jaffarpur alias Hiran Kunda, Delhi jointly with certain other persons and has not filed his return of income, the A.O. after recording reasons as per the provisions of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961,

3 ITA.No.6388/Del./2019 Shri Balbir Singh, New Delhi. reopened the assessment and notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued. In response to the same, the assessee filed his return of income on 26.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.53,014/- as per the provisions of Section 44AF of the I.T. Act, 1961.

4.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. asked the assessee to explain the taxability of Rs.97,62,499/- received on account of sale of property being his share. In absence of any proper explanation given by the assessee, the A.O, after giving indexation benefit and deduction under section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961, determined the long term capital gains of Rs.42,89,119/- by invoking the provisions of Section 144/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

5.

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) following his order in the case of brother of the assessee namely Shri Azad Singh upheld the addition made by the A.O. and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

4 ITA.No.6388/Del./2019 Shri Balbir Singh, New Delhi. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

7.

I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. I find the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision in the case of brother of the assessee namely Shri Azad Singh upheld the action of the A.O. There is nothing on record to show what has happened in the case of Shri Azad Singh. Since the Ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the addition made by the A.O. has followed his earlier order in the case of brother of the assessee who is a co-owner of the said property, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the A.O. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →