DEVANAND BABASAHEB SHIRKE,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 24/04/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.

“The Ex-party order U/s. 147 passed by the CIT(A) NFAC is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 2. The notices issued by the CIT(A) NFAC on e-portal but not received by the assessee and no opportunity to being heard has been provided to assessee, therefore ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive

2 Devanand Babasaheb Shirke

3. On the fact and circumstances CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that the assessee is having Moon Disorder problems, hence unable to understood any act made by him, without accepting the same ex-parte order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 4. On the facts and circumstances the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming total income determined at Rs. 44,49,510/- as per value taken for stamp duty purpose and made addition of Rs. 40,47,000/-, therefore ex-parte order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 5. On the facts and circumstances the learned CIT(A) NFAC ought to have accepted sale consideration as well as indexed cost of acquisition and selling expenses, therefore addition confirmed at Rs. 40,47,000/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 6. On the facts and circumstances the learned CIT(A) NFAC ought to have accepted that sale consideration was fixed at the time of amount received by the assessee on 01/02/2015 as per mutual consent of the parties i.e. during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2015- 2016 and not A.Y. 2018-2019, therefore addition confirmed at Rs. 40,70,000/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) NFAC ought to have considered assessing officer failed to consider that the assesse was in possession of the said property and thereby not considered the reply filed by assessee and failed to consider valuation report submitted by the assessee in relation to valuation of property, therefore the order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in not accepted the contention of the assesse that assessee has possession of property and sale deed was executed as consentor, therefore addition confirmed are unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The assessee is denied the liability of interest charges U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, the same may kindly be deleted.”

3 Devanand Babasaheb Shirke before the learned CIT(A) and not filed relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).