SHARDA DEVI KATTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing 13/04/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 29/05/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred as “NFAC”] dated 26-08-2022 for the assessment year 2011-12 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. “1.The impugned assessment order u/s 144 rws 148 dated 18.12.2018 as well as the notice u/s 148 and the action taken by the Id. AO u/s 147 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation, without proper approval or satisfaction and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. The Id. AO also erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not providing the adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in the gross breach of law.

2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without taking in to consideration the material and facts and without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in the gross breach of law. Hence the additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be quashed and delete.

3. Rs.8,25,080/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.8.25.080/- on account of Short term capital Gain Long, the Id. AO and CIT(A) both are also erred in taking the sale consideration at Rs. 12.25,080/- as per DLC rate in pace of actual sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- shown or received by the assessee, and also erred in not giving the credit of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of cost of construction. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the addition may kindly be deleted in full.

4. Rs.3,93,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.3.93,000/- u/s 69 on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchases of shares and also erred in not giving the credit or setoff of sale consideration received on sale of above properly and also erred in not giving the credit or setoff of the addition made on account of STCG. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the addition may kindly be deleted in full.

5. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C/ The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO and thus passed the ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A). 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was provided several opportunities to represent her case on 22-10-2019, 31-12-2020 and 28-07-2022 and thus nothing was advanced by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee concurring with the finding of the AO. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the ld. CIT(A)’s order wherein ld. CIT(A) passed the ex- parte order in the case of the assessee for the reason that in spite of providing several opportunities by the ld.CIT(A) on 22-10-2019, 31-12-2020 and 28-07- 2022, nothing had been heard from the assessee on the question raised before him. The facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) at para 4 and 5 of his order is reproduced hereunder.

In the reply, the A/R has submitted copy of ITR with computation for A.Y. 2011- 12. However, the assesse has not e-verified the ITR filed u/s. 148 therefore the case was completed ex-parte. In the computation of income assessee has declared income from business or profession at Rs 1,81,327/-, income from short term capital gain of Rs. 2,670/- and income from other sources of Rs. 3,838/-. In the computation of short term capital gain the assesse has claimed acquisition cost of Rs. 3,75,000/ registration expenses of Rs. 22,330/- and construction cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-, In support of acquisition cost of Rs. 3,75,000/- and registration expenses of Rs. 22,320/- the assesse has submitted purchase deed dated 12.11.2008. Thus the same was allowed to the assessee. But the AO disallowed Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of construction cost as the assesse could not submit any bills/ vouchers regarding construction material and valuation report upon the property in question. The assesse has sold the property situated at H.No.

3/757, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur to Smt. Sudha Bhatnagar for Rs. 6,00,000/- on 27.10.10. However, the Sub-Registrar had: enhance the value of the property at Rs 12,25,080/- Therefore the sale value in the above matter was taken at Rs. 12,25,060/-. Accordingly. AO calculated short term capital gain at Rs. 8,27,750/- by allowing acquisition cost of Rs. 3,75,000 and registration expenses of Rs. 22,320/-. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) was also initiated by the AO As per the ITS details AO further found that during the period under consideration the assesse has paid Rs. 1,98,000/- and Rs. 1,95,200/- for purchasing of shares of Punjab and Sindh bank and Tata Steel Ltd. The assesse has said nothing in her reply regarding the above investment therefore the source of investment of Rs. 3,93,000/- remained unsubstantiated. Accordingly. AO made addition of Rs 3,93,000/- u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the assessee, In view of the above, AO computed total income at Rs 14.05.920/- and accordingly levied tax and charged interest u/s. 234A, 2358 of the Act