CHITRA KUTHIALA,DELHI vs. DCIT - CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 269/DEL/2024Status: FixedITAT Delhi28 November 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal continued to be defective as the appeal memo and grounds were unsigned, and no steps were taken to rectify this substantive defect. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appeal was a nullity in law and dismissed it in limine without considering the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order for AY 2020-21, raising various grounds challenging the valuation of cost of acquisition and improvement of property by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) and alleged procedural errors by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the appeal was found to be procedurally defective as the appeal memo and grounds were unsigned, and the assessee failed to rectify this defect despite being notified.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal with unsigned appeal memo and grounds, where the defect was not rectified, can be taken cognizance of; and consequently, the dismissal of the appeal in limine without addressing the substantive valuation issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

For Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 28.11.2024Pronounced: 28.11.2024

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-A.M.: The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee arising from the assessment order dated 28.11.2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] pertaining to assessment year 2020-21. 2. Grounds of appeal

1.

1. raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. "That the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement taken by assessee was based upon valuation report issued by senior, well established and renowned valuer, however same was not considered by id. Assessing officer at the time of issuing order to the assessee.

2. That the Id. Assessing officer considered the valuation report issued by District Valuation Officer (hereinafter referred as "DVO") only where DVO completely disagreed with the cost of improvement considered by valuer of assessee in his valuation report dated 12.12.2019 as the invoices based upon which cost of improvement taken was not submitted by assessee. In this case demand of invoices for such long period (where more than 20 years passed) by Chitra Kuthiala vs DCIT DVO as well as the Id. Assessing officer is not justifiable as per income tax act as well as rules and regulations appurtenant thereto. Hence 100% disallowance of cost of improvement on the ground that no expenditure incurred on property over a long period of time is not justifiable.

3. That the DVO has erred computing the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.2001 based on property located at Vasant Kunj which was of category C and property sold by assessee was also of category C still DVO considered property located at Vasant Kunj in better locality and made reduction of 10% of value while calculating the land rate per Sqm. Hence, it decreases the value of land of assessee as on 01.04.2001.

4. That the DVO has erred in calculating the depreciated value of cost of construction of structure (based on DPAR of 1992) as on 01 April 2001 as value of cost of construction of assessee is calculated about the half of amount of cost of construction of property the DVO has taken/assumed for reference for calculation of valuation of property. Hence, value of cost of construction of structure calculated by DVO is completely disagreed by assessee.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld AO erred in passing the assessment order, without doing any additional enquiry without any specific reasons.

6.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld AO in passing the impugned assessment order, without giving any Show Cause Notice which was unlawful and made in violation of principles of natural justice.”

3.

When the matter was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that defective memo dated 29.01.2024 was issued to the assessee pointing out that the appeal memo is not signed by the assessee and also the grounds of appeal has not been signed. The assessee was informed that the rectification of defect is required to be carried out within 10 days of the receipt of the defect memo.

Chitra Kuthiala vs DCIT 4. We have heard Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue and perused the material on record. It is seen from the record that appeal of the assessee continues to remain defective and no measures have been taken to remove the substantive defect pointed out to the assessee. Under these circumstances the unsigned appeal memo and grounds annexed thereto, cannot be taken cognizance. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is nonest appeal and a nullity in law. The appeal of the assessee is thus, dismissed in limine.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th November, 2024.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →