MITHLESH,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

Assessee by : Shri Naresh Kr. Aggarwal, Adv. Department by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17-07-2018 Date of pronouncement : 24-07-2018 O R D E R

PER R. K. PANDA, AM :

“5.2 Ground nos.3 to 13: The appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.26,56,500/- made by the AO being the difference in actual sale consideration received and the value assessed by Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. During the course of appellate proceedings it has been stated that that appellant has not been provided AIR information and appellant is not able to get the copy of the documents from registration authority. However, during the course of appellate proceedings the appellant changed her stand that appellant does not have any knowledge about the said transaction made (as per submission dt. 21.06.2017 before undersigned) to accepting that appellant had sold rights related to the property Khasra no. 448, rakba-14, biga-2, biswa on 23.03.2012. No evidence in support of cost of these rights has been given by the appellant during appellate proceedings or assessment proceedings. 5.2.1 It is observed that appellant had been deliberately hiding details regarding the said transaction as initially AIR information was challenged allegedly calling it false information. Thus circumstantially it is held that there is no evidence to contradict the computation of appellant's income based on the provisions of section 50C. Thus these grounds of appeal are dismissed and addition made is upheld.”

“1. That the appellant humbly reiterates for your benign and worthy consideration all the facts and grounds of appeal made before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

2. That the CIT (A) has committed a mistake by not considering ground relating to the validity of the assessment order. That the notice issued under see 148 does not pass test for a valid notice.

3. That the assessment order passed is not just and fair under the circumstances. That there exists no adequate and valid justification for addition on account of AIR Information in the appellant's income. That facts as apparent from documents submitted and submission have not been accorded due weight as warranted under the law. That CIT (A) has not given due weight to the assessee's requests to make inquiries before relying upon AO finding in assessment Order.

4. That the CIT (A) has not passed a speaking order in respect of application made to hold inquiry under Sec 250(4) for agricultural land and its cultivation rights etc (non-capital asset) sold by the appellant.

5. That the CIT (A) has made an error in dismissing the appeal whereby making a finding of fact that the appellant has sold the agricultural land’s (non -capital asset) leased cultivation rights.

6. That the Section SOC has no application to the leased cultivation rights of agricultural land (non-capital asset). 7. That justice should not only be done but appears to have been done manifestly and undoubtedly. The Hon’ble S C says that the taxing authorities should not act in a manner indicate that the scale of justice are weighted against the assessee. The appellant craves for permission to add, delete or amen the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

5. Ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee being an illiterate person was not able to substantiate his case effectively either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that in the interest of justice the matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case.