NEHA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(5), NEW DELHI
ITA No.2412/Del/2018
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2018
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2009-10
NEHA GUPTA,
Rujhaan Studio, 10,
Commissioner Lane, Kripa Narain Marg,
Civil Lines, New Delhi.
PAN No.AAZPG1894J
बनाम
Vs.
ITO,
Ward 35(5),
New Delhi.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
Assessee by Shri V.K. Agarwal, Adv. &
Shri Hrithik Lamba, Adv.
Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
08.10.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 17.10.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-12, New Delhi dated 14.12.2017 for the AY 2009-10. 2. The assessee in her appeal raised the following grounds:
1. “Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the assessment order which is ex-facie illegal arbitrary and without juri iction being against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of IT Act, 1961. 2
The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the assessment order in spite of the fact that notice issued u/s 148 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and without juri iction.
The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the assessment order in spite of the fact that approval u/s 151 of the IT Act, 1961 was not attached with reasons forwarded to the appellant.
The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in not allowing relief u/s 50G without appreciating the fact in proper perspective.
The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in not allowing relief u/s 50G in spite of the fact that industrial unit has been shifted from Urban Area to Non Urban Area and not from one Urban Area to another Urban Area as notified by the Central Government vide notification no. SO 619(E) dt. 27/04/2006 and in holding that this issue has not been addressed before him (para 20) though the submission on this issue were filed vide para 12 of written submission dt. 11/12/2017. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- made u/s 50C/50G of the IT Act, 1961 in spite of the fact that investment in new asset being Rs.69,43,070/- is much more than the capital gain on transfer of old asset.
The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- made u/s 50C of the IT Act, 1961. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in ignoring the ground no. 9 where in it is requested that without prejudice to other grounds, addition u/s 50G is w.r.t to sale of capital asset, any addition will amount to capital gain only and not income from other source.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground no.8 of grounds of appeal is not pressed. Accordingly ground no.8 of grounds of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3
Coming to ground nos. 6 & 7 i.e. in respect of application of provisions u/s 50C of the Act the Ld. Counsel submits that during the assessment year under consideration the assessee sold industrial unit at Narela, Delhi for a consideration of Rs.60 lakhs on 28.08.2008. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee paid stamp duty on the valuation adopted by the Sub