RAJMATA KAVITESHWARI DEVI,SATNA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SATNA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
(A)
This appeal vide I.T.A. No.107/JAB/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 against impugned appellate order dated
16.04.2024
(DIN
&
Order
No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-
25/1064133918(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B)
In this case, assessment order dated 05.12.2018 was passed ex parte qua appellant assessee u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). In the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.1,54,80,000/- on the basis of information received in Annual
Information Returns (“AIR”, for short) received by the Income Tax
Department from various agencies. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid information in AIR, notice u/s 147 of I. T. Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income, declaring Nil income. The dispute in the present case regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,54,80,000/- arose on account of sale of property by the assessee during the year, for sale consideration of Rs.1 crores which was the lower
Appellant by Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate
Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1
I.T.A. No.107/JAB/2024
Assessment Year:2014-15 2
than the value ascertained Stamp Duty Authority at Rs.1,54,80,000/-.
During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed objection to the adoption of stamp duty valuation of Rs.1,54,80,000/-. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the DVO. Taking adverse view of the same, the Assessing Officer assessed the entire aforesaid amount of Rs.1,54,80,000/- as assessee’s income. The assessee initially filed a revision petition before the Ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (“PCIT”, for short) u/s 264 of I.T. Act. Later, application for revision u/s 254 of I.T.
Act was withdrawn by the assessee to seek other legal remedies with regard to assessee’s assessment. However, the Ld. PCIT dismissed the assessee’s revision petition u/s 254 of I.T. Act. The assessee agitated against the order of the dismissal of assessee’s petition u/s 264 of I.T. Act, in writ petition filed in Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Vide order dated 02.09.2022, the Hon’ble High Court restored the matter to the file of the Ld. PCIT to re- consider the assessee’s application for withdrawal of application u/s 264 of I.T. Act. The Ld. PCIT eventually passed an order dated 28.10.2022 allowing assessee’s application for withdrawing revision petition u/s 264 of I.T. Act; and thereby restoring the aforesaid ex parte assessment order dated
05.12.2018 of the Assessing Officer.
(B.1) Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A).
Vide impugned appellate order dated 16.04.2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority (“FAA”, for short) both on limitation ground and on merits. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 16.04.2024
of FAA. The grounds of appeal are as under: -
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NFAC) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed under sec. 144
dated 05.12.2018, which is ab initio void, bad in law, arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
I.T.A. No.107/JAB/2024
Assessment Year:2014-15 3
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NFAC)erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, beyond the control of the appellant and the appellant was not benefitted from filing the appeal belatedly and even otherwise after the order passed by Hon'ble High court which was implemented by the learned PCIT the date of filing appeal restored back to his original date and thus the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NFAC) violated the order passed by the higher authorities and this shows the biasness of the CIT (A) which is also reflecting in the decision of the CIT(A) on merit of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NAFC) was not Justified in confirming the action of AO treating the cash deposits as unexplained income without considering the ITR filed by the appellant and determining the stamp duty value of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- on sale of land as income from other sources, when the transaction in capital asset called for assessment of capital gains tax only and when all the details are available with the lower authorities to determine the capital gains, the addition made by the AO itself is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NAFC) was not Justified in holding that, the appellant did not cooperate in assessment proceedings merely on the ground that she did not respond to the notices issued by the Departmental Valuation Officer, particularly when all the requisite documents necessary for valuation of the fair market value was already on record and detailed reply along with documents was filed before the AO in response to the SCN issued on 15.12.2017. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NAFC) was not Justified in confirming the addition without appreciating the facts that appellant have received only 70 lakhs and the power of attorney holder who is also one of the beneficiary of land as his wife had purchased the land and all the three purchasers is having their possession since long back and it is distress sale as appellant had no option but to sell them on their rates. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NAFC) was not Justified in upholding the action of the AO with regard to valuation of property without appreciating that as per section 142A(6) it is mandatory for the valuation officer to send the report within six months and when everything was on record, it is not known as to what more details were required for determining the cost. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NAFC) was not Justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,54,80,000 without appreciating that appellant had sold the land admeasuring 1.620 hectares and benefit of cost of acquisition as declared by appellant in ITR which is on the basis of