SURJIT KOUR CHAHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 65(1), NEW DELHI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.2304/िदʟी/2023 (िन.व. 2011-12)
Surjit Kour Chahal,
2979/1, Gali No. 11, Main Shiv Mandir Road,
Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi 110008
PAN: ADYPC-2940-C
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 65(1), Civic Centre, J.L Nehru Marg,
New Delhi 110002
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : None
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR and Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
10/01/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
04/04/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 18.06.2023, for assessment year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was filed by the assessee in August 2023, and the first notice was sent to the assessee on 11.09.2023 for the hearing fixed on 04.10.2023. The notice was sent through RPAD and email on the addresses mentioned in Form No. 36. On the date fixed none appeared to represent the assessee. Thereafter, the appeal
2
was adjourned to 02.11.2023 and fresh notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. Again none appeared to represent the assessee on the date fixed despite the fact that notice was duly served as is evident from acknowledgment available on record. Thereafter, repeated notices were sent to the assessee, however, no response was received from the assessee to any of the notices. It appears that the assessee is not keen to purse her appeal, hence, this appeal is taken up for adjudication with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on the basis of material already available on record.
3. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: Notice u/s. 148
of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12
was issued to the assessee on 21.03.2018. Since, there was no response from the assessee the AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 19.07.2018 to file return of income online through e-filing portal by 31.07.2018. Still, there was no response from the assessee’s side, hence, final show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 20.11.2018. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 29.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,14,993/- from pension. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, there were cash deposits of Rs.21,40,000/- in the saving bank account of the assessee with State Bank of India,
Janakpuri Branch, New Delhi. The assessee explained the source of cash deposits in the bank during Financial Year 2010-11 from sale of property in cash. The assessee had sold four flats admiring 50 sq. yard each, for a total consideration of Rs.30.5
Lakhs as under:-
3
S.No Date
Cheque
(Rs.)
Cash (Rs.)
Total
Consideration
(Rs.)
1
17.11.2010
-
7 lakhs
7 lakhs
2
07.01.2011
5 lakhs
3 lakhs
8 lakhs
3
07.01.2011
-
8 lakhs
8 lakhs
4
15.03.2011
-
7.5 lakhs
7.5 lakhs
Total
5 lakhs
25.5 lakhs
30.5 lakhs
The assessee computed Long Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable property as under:
Sales Consideration
:
Rs.28,00,000/-
Less: Cost of Acquisition
:
Rs.63,200/-
(after indexation)
Cost of improvement in (1989-90)
:
Rs.10,33,430/-
(after indexation)
Cost of improvement in 1991-92
:
Rs.4,73,080/-
(after indexation)
Deduction: u/s. 54 of the Act
:
Rs.12,48,000/-
Long Term Capital Gain (loss)
:
- (Rs.17,710/-)
1. The AO recomputed LTCG at Rs.15,52,000/- after denying cost of acquisition and cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) partly accepted assessee’s contentions and allowed cost of acquisition. However, the CIT(A) after having noted the difference in actual sale consideration received by the assessee and the total sales consideration disclosed by the 4 assessee, issued enhancement notice to the assessee and vide impugned order enhanced the Capital gain by Rs.2.5 lakhs.
2. Further, during assessment proceedings the AO observed that there were cash deposits to the tune of Rs.21,40,000/- in bank account of the assessee. The assessee explained source of cash deposits as cash consideration received from immovable property. The AO accepted that cash deposits to the tune Rs.18,50,000/- stands explained and made addition of Rs.6,90,000/-. The CIT(A) further granted relief to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- and confirmed addition of Rs.1,90,000/-. 4.3. Now, the assessee is in appeal against enhancement of Rs.2,50,000/- under the head Capital Gains, quantification of cost of acquisition of immovable prorperty, and addition of Rs.1,90,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. After hearing submissions made by ld. DR, examining the documents on record, I find the order of CIT(A) is fair and reasonable. The assessee has failed to show any perversity in the impugned order. Hence, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 04th day April, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 04.04.2025
NV/-
5
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Dy./Asstt.