SUNITA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 41(4), NEW DELHI

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the various additions made by the AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 31st March, 2017 declaring the total income at Rs.9,46,040/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) at a total income of Rs.35,49,470/- wherein he made an addition of Rs.24 lakhs on account of short- term capital gain and disallowed an amount of Rs.2,03,066/- on account of short- term capital loss. While making the addition of Rs.24 lakhs on account of short- term capital gain, the AO had noted that the assessee had purchased the property bearing Flat No.901, Block-C, Pocket GH-IV, Sector 29, Rohini, Delhi on 7th March, 2013 for a total consideration of Rs.74,29,158/-. However, the property was sold for Rs.86 lakhs, but, the value considered by the authorities for the stamp duty purpose was Rs.1,10,00,000/-. He, therefore, applying the provisions of section 50C of the IT Act, determined the short-term capital gain at Rs.24 lakhs. The matter was referred to the DVO as per the request of the assessee.

Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, sustained the addition made by the AO.

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

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. Both the sides submitted that this matter should be restored to the file