CHANDAN BUILDWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 6(1), NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by CIT (Appeals)-2, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16.

1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in dismissing the appeal in limine with in view that the Appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is factually incorrect, as such the impugned order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and passed in gross disregard to the principle of natural justice.

2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserve to be set aside as the Appellant was not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard, and further not passing an order on merits of disputed addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to comply with requirements of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

3) That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and not justified as the appeal is dismissed simply on account of non-prosecution though the law does not empower the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

4) That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as the same has been passed without considering the merits of the case, which is against the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in assessing the business loss of Rs. 16300100/- suffered during the year by the Appellant as Capital Loss, on conjectures and surmises, ignoring the fair market valuation of the land determined by an approved valuer as on the date of conversion of Investment to Stock in Trade.

6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in not accepting the valuation of Land determined by an Approved Valuer as on the date of conversion of Land from Investment to Stock in Trade, and erred in considering the sales consideration of Rs. 48500000/- as fair market value of land though the sales happened much after the date of valuation/ conversion from Investment to Stock in Trade. 7) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in law not allowing the set off of business loss of Rs. 16300100/- suffered by it against Income from Business and Other Income. 8) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law in assessing the capital loss as per the provisions of section 45(2) which is not in consonance with the provisions of said section ignoring the valuation of an approved valuer as on the date of conversion of Land from Investment to Stock in Trade.

9) That the appellant leaves to craves to add, alter and/ or delete any Grounds of Appeal at later stage if necessary. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be accepted and suitable relief be allowed. “

pe The assessee filed return of income on 30.12.2015 declaring a loss of Rs. 10,88,387/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 28.12.2017 thereby assessing the income at Rs.1,52,14,630/-.