ASHOK KUMAR KHATHURIA,105 KRANTI KRIPLANI NAGAR vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Page 1 of 6
आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessment Year:2013-14
Ashok Kumar Khathuria,
105, Kranti Kriplani Nagar,
Indore
बनाम/
Vs.
NFAC
Delhi
(Assessee/Appellant)
(Revenue/Respondent)
PAN: ACPPK3556Q
Assessee by Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, ARs
Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
17.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement
24.12.2025
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal bearing
DIN:
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071832325(1) dated 02.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 16.03.2023 passed by learned
ITO-Ward 1(2), Indore [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961
[“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

Ashok Kumar Khathuria
ITA No. 230/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14
Page 2 of 6
“1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred to sustain the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. dt. 16.03.2023, such action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on the fact. As the assessment order have been passed without considering the fact that all the statutory notices were issued to the appellant on the PAN which does not belongs to him i.e. LBTPK8441A.
2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred to dismiss the appeal vide order dt. 02.01.2025, which was preferred against the ex-party order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, such action of Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified as the same is against the newly inserted clause (a) of Sec. 251 of the Act, effective from 1st day of October, 2024. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred to dismiss the appeal filed before him, ignoring the adjournment application filed by the appellant, such action of the Ld.
CIT(A) is against the principal of natural justice and opportunity of being heard.
4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred to sustain the order passed by the Ld. A.O. by making addition of Rs. 29,22,000/-in respect of short-term capital gain and Rs. 35,49,760/- u/s 50C of the Act without giving proper opportunity to the assessee which is against the law of natural justice. Therefore, such an order passed u/s 144 of the Act is bad in law, hence should be quashed.
5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred to sustain the order passed by the Ld. A.O. by not bothering to consider the cost of acquisition of the immovable property, thus, such an order is bad in law hence should be quashed. The order so passed u/s 144 of the Aet may kindly be strike down.
6. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred to sustain the order passed by the Ld. A.O. by acting in a hurried manner without considering the Indexed
Cost of Acquisition, Cost of Improvement, Deductions u/s 54F of the Act, therefore, such an order is bad in law and order so passed u/s 144 of the Act, should be struck down immediately.
7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred to sustain on the facts and in law by making addition of Rs. 29,22,000/- in respect of short-term capital gain and Rs.
35,49,760/- u/s 50C of the Act is merely on the basis of assumptions, surmise and presumptions and without any corroborative evidence on record.
Therefore, such an order is bad in law hence should be quashed. The order so passed u/s 144 of the Act may kindly be quashed.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.”
2. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and case record perused.

Ashok Kumar Khathuria
ITA No. 230/Ind/2025 - AY 2013-14
Page 3 of 6
3. At first, we re-produced below the impugned order passed by Ld.
CIT(A):
“5. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notices were issued on 03.10.2024 on the PAN in which the appeal was filed (PAN: ACPPK3556Q).
In response to the notice, the appellant filed adjournment petition by requesting for 15 to 20 days time. As per his request, case was adjoumed to 06.11.2024. As he did not respond to that notice, the case was again posted for hearing on 24.11.2024 vide notice dated: 07.11.2024. The appellant again filed adjournment for the reason that, the documents are to be collected from the