PARVINDER KAUR SAWHNEY,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT, DELHI -12, NEW DELHI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-12 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. PCIT’) dated 26.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee dated 30.03.2018. However, none appeared and no submissions were filed. Further notices were issued to the assessee, still no response from the assessee and final notice u/s 2 142(1) of the Act dated 05.10.2018 was issued for completing the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. In response, ld. AR for the assessee only submitted adjournment letter seeking more time for preparation of details. Thereafter, no submissions were made or none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, assessment was completed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act by making following additions :- S.No. Particulars (Amount in Rs.)

While verifying the assessment records, ld. PCIT, Delhi 12, Delhi observed that there was information on NMS that assessee had made cash deposit in his bank account and also made share transactions but no return of income was filed. Accordingly, the case was reopened but the assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed with taxable income of Rs.1,19,46,610/- and tax demand of Rs.90,63,830/- was raised. He observed that during the recovery proceedings, it was observed that assessee had sold immovable properties and the 3 income/gain arising from the sale of properties was not disclosed by the assessee nor being assessed by the AO. It was also found that the assessee has sold immovable properties at value less than the value assessed by stamp valuation authority for the purpose of stamp duty. Further it was observed that assessee has given property in Gurgaon for lease for Rs.8 lakhs per month and the same was not offered to tax. Considering the above facts on record, ld. PCIT observed that the assessment order under consideration is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 22.02.2021 was issued. In response, ld. AR for the assessee appeared and sought adjournment and accordingly the case was adjourned to 08.03.2021. On 08.03.2021, assessee herself submitted a letter dated 08.03.2021 stating as under :- “I hereby offer to payment of tax on capital gain as mentioned in section 263 notice dated 22.02.2021 subject to my right to seek legal remedies available if any adverse order is passed against me. This is being done by me as being a law abiding citizen and with a hope supported by doctorine of legitimate expectations that the state will collect tax which are only legitimate under the law.” The assessee has also computed tax on gain on properties mentioned in the notice as under :-

LTCG as per Notice

Further notice dated 10.03.2021 was issued. In response, ld. AR for the assessee submitted a letter dated 15.03.2021 and for the sake of clarity, the same are reproduced below :- "It is submitted that within the short period Assessee is unable to lay his hands on the required information inspite of best efforts. The Assessee's records are kept in the company office of Kouton Retail India in which husband of assessee was a director, since, the company has been sealed by High Court , appointed liquidator and the assessee is not able to access the records and thus assessee needs more time of one week to comply with the impugned Notice. In the mean time in view of principle of natural justice, your goodself is requested to provide with relied upon documents on the basis of which your goodself had issued the Notice.