BIMLESH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 2(5), NOIDA

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-1, Noida dated 31.08.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. That the AO ad the Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts and in law in passing exparte orders as the appellant was not afforded proper and adequate opportunity of being heard as o notices were validly served on the appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. That the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147/148 of I.T. Act, is illegal inter alia because : a) There is no proper application of mind on the part of the AO so as to come to an independent satisfaction that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment since reasons have been recorded merely on the basis of AIR information. b) The AO has acted on mere surmises and suspicion thereby ignoring the legal requiremet of law which is “reason to believe” and not “reason to suspect”. c) Requisite sanction as required from the competent authority u/s. 151 of the I.T. Act has not been taken by the AO for issuing notice u/s. 148.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not admitting the appeal u/s. 249(1)(a) of I.T. Act as there is no evidence on record for depositing appeal filing fee.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not admitting the appeal u/s. 249(4)(b) of I.T. Act as according to him no return had been filed by the appellant.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,18,000/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land as the sale of agricultural land is exempt from tax.

6. Without prejudice to ground no. 4 above, eve on merits, the addition of Rs. 15,18,000/- is very excessive.

2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3. At the time of haring Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues against the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He further stated that assessee is having all the necessary evidences for substantiating the claim before the revenue authorities, if this Bench grants an opportunity to the assessee to do the same. He requested that AO has also completed the assessment u/s. 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating the claim. He requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the Assessing Officer to decide the same, afresh, as per law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well as for production of all the necessary evidences for substantiating the claim of the assessee before the Assessing Officer.

[H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:19-02-2020 SRB