SMT. KAMLESH GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. A letter dated 06.12.2024, along with Form No. 2, was placed on record, confirming the assessee's election to settle the dispute under the scheme and her intention to withdraw the appeal. The Learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Smt. Kamlesh Gupta, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Lucknow Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.12.2022, for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was filed on 27.01.2023. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee pertained to the validity of the notice under section 143(2), the acceptance of only a portion of the construction cost for certain previous years, and alleged overlooking of material evidence and affidavits. During the hearing on 12.12.2024, the assessee's counsel submitted that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. A letter dated 06.12.2024, along with Form No. 2, was placed on record to support this submission.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was correct in upholding the validity of the notice under section 143(2) dated 15.09.2015, issued on the basis of CASS methodology, when it allegedly did not meet the requirements of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous years 2001-02, 2006-07, and 2007-08, and directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly, instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed? Assessee's Contentions: Regarding Issue 1: The assessee contended that the notice under section 143(2) was invalid as it did not meet legal requirements. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the ITAT, Allahabad Bench in Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 113/Alld/2013) and ITAT Lucknow Bench in Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT (Exemption) (ITA No. 663/LKW/2016), arguing that the assessment order based on such notice should be held null and void. Regarding Issue 2: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) overlooked material information, affidavits, and evidence supporting the full construction cost claimed for the specified previous years. The assessee also contended that an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area in the sale deed should not lead to the denial of the actual constructed area and construction cost claimed, supported by sworn affidavits. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue on these issues as the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta Asstt. Commissioner of v. 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void.
Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years.
BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08.
4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08.
5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no.
2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed.
3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.”
In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
