ABDULLAH KHAN,BHADOHI vs. CIT (A), VARANASI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ‘SMC’, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 vs. The Commissioner of Income Abdullah Khan, Takiya Kallan Shah, Main Road, Tax (Appeals), Varanasi District-Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), U.P. PAN-AKYPK9399L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Arif Iqbal, Advocate Department by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 12.12.2022 Date of pronouncement: 20.12.2022 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of CIT(A), both dated 04.06.2019 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12, respectively. 2. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were passed on 04.06.2019, whereas these appeals have been filed by the assessee on 01.07.2022, therefore, the delay of more than two years is required to be explained. The assessee has filed the applications for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee could not receive the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) till 20.03.2020 when the assessee obtained the certified copies of the above orders. The learned AR of the assessee has further submitted that the counsel who was appearing for the assessee also did not communicate about the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) therefore, the assessee was having no knowledge about the impugned orders. He has further submitted that when the orders were received by the assessee, it was Covid-19

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan pandemic period and only after the lockdown and other restrictions were relaxed, the assessee took steps to file the present appeal. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the limitation from 15.03.2020 to 20.06.2022, the appeals of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) were duly sent to the assessee through speed post therefore, the assessee cannot take the excuse of having no knowledge of the impugned orders. He has objected to the condonation of delay of an inordinate delay in filing these appeals. 4. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee has explained the cause of delay as he was having no knowledge about the impugned orders dated 04.06.2019 till he obtained the certified copies of these orders on 20.03.2020. Though, the learned DR has submitted that the orders were sent to the assessee through speed post however, no details were filed about the fate of the speed post parcels through which the orders were sent and further it is also not clear from the limited details filed by the learned DR as to which address the orders were sent. The assessee has further explained that the counsel of the assessee appearing before the CIT(A) did not communicate about the impugned orders. It is pertinent to note that before the CIT(A), nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee and consequently these appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) by upholding the orders of the AO. It is clear that nobody has appeared before the CIT(A) and therefore, the counsel who was authorized to appear before the CIT(A) did not attend the proceedings and assessee was not communicated about the orders. Since, the assessee obtained the certified copies of these orders on 20.03.2020 when Covid-19 pandemic 2

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan outbreak was prevailing and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking the cognizance for extension of limitation vide decision reported in 441 ITR 722 initially, vide order dated 23.03.2020, extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts / Tribunal including the Hon’ble Supreme Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. The said period of limitation was extended from time to time and finally vide judgment dated 10.01.2022, the period of limitation was extended till 28.02.2022 by allowing the limitation upto 90 days w.e.f. 01.03.2022. For ready reference, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- “1. In March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic. 2. On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021. 3. Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. 4. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID19 and the drastic surge in the number of COVID cases across the country. Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following: i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020 ; and ii. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon’ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and 3

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan iii. pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.”

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan only on basis of an affidavit which have not contained in the Act and is, deserve be quashed as such. 2. That the learned Commissioner has not considered that appellant has not purchased any land for Rs 375000/- during financial year relevant to assessment year 2011-12 as such there was no question of investment of rs 375000/-during the year .and was submitted the reply on 22.12.2015 and 30.12.2015 before Assessing Officer and given their all ITR-S from the previous year and submitted his reply in written in which he has given detail of the investment of Godown purchased by him in past year 2008-09 by their previous saving, loan and profit gain but his submission was not considered, by the Assessing Officer and initiated the order u/s 147 without giving any information to appellant. 3. That learned commissioner has not seen the fact where appellant was denied the purchasing of godown and also admitted in their reply that Rs 375000.00 was never invested by him for purchasing of Godown, during this year but the assessing officer could not considered appellant submission and without applying with looking into records and evidences the assessing officer treated Rs 375000.00 as his assessed income. finally passed an order u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Varanasi has not been seen the process of assessement by the Assessing Officer ward 1(4) Bhadohi where the proper opportunity was not given to applicant to submit their reply regarding purchasing of Godown for Rs 375000/-. 5. That the appellant was filing ITR-S from the year of 2004-2005 till now and there is a provision in filling ITR-S where only necessary to show the gross receipt and its 8% net profit which the assessing officer used to the power under the Act personally in intension to create revenue which is bad in law. 6. The A.O had issued notice to assessee under section 148 of I.T.Act on the basis of enquiry report dated 09.02.2016 from the ADI (Inv.)Varanasi which subject was to explain about purchasing of land where order passed on the basis as per ADI report .the A.O treated it an investment whether it was the part of the fixed assets under the part of balance sheet however assessee filed their return under section 44AD in form 4S (Sugam) where under this section 44AD the assessee is also given in written the computation details of form 4S where he declare total receipt and 8% of their net profit in his reply. as per section 44AD and in this clauses of tax form 4S, he was not liable to show his investment which is part of balance sheet and was not applicable in form 4S, regarding land which is the part of balance sheet. the assesse with his legal representative submitted their reply of the same that he had not purchased any land or invested non regarding the assessment year 2011-12 the applicant was also submitted the statement of their bank and income tax return continues from AY.2004- 05, to 2012-13 before the officer where he was explained to him in written that he had not invested any land or other investment and he was submitted the papers supported his reply regarding the said notice from A.Y 2004-05 to 2008-09. That finding and conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Varanasi that the assessment order passed u/s 144/148 of the Act 5

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan dated 04.06.2019 in the case of assessee for the Assessment year 2011-12 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interest of revenue in terms of section 263 of the Act on the following basis is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provision of law and hence untenable. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that the assessment under passed by the A.O. is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that surmises, conjecture and suspicion could not be basis much less a valid basis to invoke section 144/148 of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax also has failed to appreciate that under section 144/148 of the Act, an order of assessment cannot be set aside to simply to make further enquiries and thereafter pass fresh order of assessment and as such, impugned order is contrary to law and hence unsustainable. That various other adverse finding recorded in the notice under section 144/148 of the Act and also in impugned order are factually incorrect, vague, legally misconceived and untenable. That while passing the order u/s 144/148 of the Act the learned Commissioner of Income Tax can not travel beyond the show cause notice and therefore findings and observation and also the material relied upon not referred in the show cause notice but made part of the order could neither in law and nor on fact be made a basis to assume jurisdiction u/s 144/148 of the Act and thus order on this ground alone deserve to be quashed as such. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that section 144/148 of IT Act and cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry in other words. allegation of proper enquiry or independence enquiry cannot be a valid basis to invoke section 144/148 of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting opportunity to explain to appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and vitiated order.”

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan further stated in the report that the Godown was sold by Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal to the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- stamp duty valuation of which under section 50C was Rs. 21,80,000/-. The AO asked the assessee to explain the source of investment in purchase of Godown by issuing various notices under section 142(1). Initially, there was no response from the assessee but finally the assessee furnished the replies dated 22.12.2015 and 13.12.2015 alongwith the bank account and copy of acknowledgment of return of income of past several years. The AO observed that these details could not explain the source of investment as the assessee could not furnish even the return of income in response to notice under section 148. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment under section 148 and made the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as unexplained investment on purchase of Godown. The AO noted that the assessee submitted an affidavit dated 31.08.2007 in which he admitted that Rs. 5,00,000/- was remained unpaid during the year and consequently, the addition was made for Rs. 8,00,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/-. The assessee challenged the order of the AO before the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee explained the source of investment by producing the relevant details. The assessee also produced the necessary documentary evidence in support of his submissions before the CIT(A) comprising of an agreement to sell dated 02.03.2007 and payment of earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of agreement to sell. Assessee also furnished a chart showing cash payment details to the vendor Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal. The CIT(A) forwarded all these documents to the AO for remand report. Since, nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee after the remand report of the AO therefore, the CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO.

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan 8. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has explained the source of investment by producing the income tax returns of the previous years, bank account statements and availability of the cash on account of past savings, unsecured loans and profit earned by the assessee during the past assessment years. The learned AR has also produced the copy of the agreement to sell dated 02.03.2007, sale deed dated 31.08.2007 and copy of declaration on stamp paper dated 22.08.2014. Referring to these documents, the learned AR has submitted that at the time of agreement, the assessee paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the vendor Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal (now deceased) and thereafter the assessee has paid the balance amount in installments and in staggered manner, the details of which were produced before the AO as well as CIT(A). Finally, payment of Rs. 4,90,000/- of purchase consideration was paid on 22.09.2014 to Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal (now deceased) which is recorded in a declaration by both parties, a copy of which is filed. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the AO has made the addition without considering the correct facts regarding the payment made by the assessee towards purchase consideration as well as the source of payment explained by the assessee. The assessee has been declaring the income regularly from his business activity and the purchase of the Godown is also duly recorded in the books of accounts. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that when no payment was made during the year under consideration then the addition made by the AO is not justified and liable to be deleted. 9. On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that the assessee himself has admitted that Rs. 5,00,000/- was outstanding at the time of sale deed and therefore, the AO has made an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- out of Rs. 13,00,000/- being consideration for purchase of the Godown in question. The learned DR has filed a copy of the enquiry report dated 09.02.2015 on 8

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan the direction of the Bench and submitted that the assessee has accepted the fact of purchasing of the Godown in question for consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/-. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that when the assessee has failed to explain the source of payment of Rs. 8,00,000/-, then the addition made by the AO is justified. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 10. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has purchased the Godown bearing Arazi No. 1086/2 from Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal for a consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 31.08.2007. Prior to the sale deed, there was an agreement to sell which was registered with the Sub Registrar on 02.03.2007. As per the said agreement to sell, the assessee paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as part consideration for purchase of the property in question being Godown bearing Arazi No. 1086/2, Mauja Rajpura, Tehsil Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, measuring 2 Biswa and 13 Dhoor constructed two rooms at ground floor. Therefore, the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was not paid by the assessee during the year under consideration as it was paid at the time of agreement to sell registered on 02.03.2007. The AO has made the addition of entire payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- upto the date of sale deed. The assessee has produced the return of income of the preceding years as well as other record including the profit and loss account. Though the return of income were filed under section 44AD however, the availability of the cash was explained by the assessee in a chart showing the savings from the profits of the preceding years as well as the loan obtained by the assessee. These details were not considered and discussed either by the AO or by the CIT(A) in the impugned orders. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the AO has made the addition without even considering the fact that the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of Rs. 8,00,000/- as considered by the 9

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan AO was made in the preceding year and not during the year under consideration and further the explanation of the source of the payment was not discussed by the AO as well as the CIT(A), the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the relevant facts as well as record explaining the source of investment made by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. For the assessment year 2011-12, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That order dated 04.06.2019 u/s 144/148 of the I.T.Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Varanasi has been made without considering the papers given by appellant which were related the satisfactory explanation and answer of the entire assessment order which has been made only on basis of an affidavit which have not contained in the Act and is, deserve be quashed as such. 2. That the learned Commissioner has not considered that appellant has not purchased any land for Rs 375000/- during financial year relevant to assessment year 2011-12 as such there was no question of investment of rs 375000/-during the year .and was submitted the reply on 22.12.2015 and 30.12.2015 before Assessing Officer and given their all ITR-S from the previous year and submitted his reply in written in which he has given detail of the investment of Godown purchased by him in past year 2008-09 by their previous saving, loan and profit gain but his submission was not considered, by the Assessing Officer and initiated the order u/s 147 without giving any information to appellant. 3. That learned commissioner has not seen the fact where appellant was denied the purchasing of godown and also admitted in their reply that Rs 375000.00 was never invested by him for purchasing of Godown, during this year but the assessing officer could not considered appellant submission and without applying with looking into records and evidences the assessing officer treated Rs 375000.00 as his assessed income. finally passed an order u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Varanasi has not been seen the process of assessement by the Assessing Officer ward 1(4) Bhadohi where the proper opportunity was not given to applicant to submit their reply regarding purchasing of Godown for Rs 375000/-. 5. That the appellant was filing ITR-S from the year of 2004-2005 till now and there is a provision in filling ITR-S where only necessary to show the gross 10

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan receipt and its 8% net profit which the assessing officer used to the power under the Act personally in intension to create revenue which is bad in law. 6. The A.O had issued notice to assessee under section 148 of I.T.Act on the basis of enquiry report dated 09.02.2016 from the ADI (Inv.)Varanasi which subject was to explain about purchasing of land where order passed on the basis as per ADI report .the A.O treated it an investment whether it was the part of the fixed assets under the part of balance sheet however assessee filed their return under section 44AD in form 4S (Sugam) where under this section 44AD the assessee is also given in written the computation details of form 4S where he declare total receipt and 8% of their net profit in his reply. as per section 44AD and in this clauses of tax form 4S, he was not liable to show his investment which is part of balance sheet and was not applicable in form 4S, regarding land which is the part of balance sheet. the assesse with his legal representative submitted their reply of the same that he had not purchased any land or invested non regarding the assessment year 2011-12 the applicant was also submitted the statement of their bank and income tax return continues from AY.2004- 05, to 2012-13 before the officer where he was explained to him in written that he had not invested any land or other investment and he was submitted the papers supported his reply regarding the said notice from A.Y 2004-05 to 2008-09. That finding and conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Varanasi that the assessment order passed u/s 144/148 of the Act dated 04.06.2019 in the case of assessee for the Assessment year 2011-12 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interest of revenue in terms of section 263 of the Act on the following basis is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provision of law and hence untenable. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that the assessment under passed by the A.O. is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that surmises, conjecture and suspicion could not be basis much less a valid basis to invoke section 144/148 of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax also has failed to appreciate that under section 144/148 of the Act, an order of assessment cannot be set aside to simply to make further enquiries and thereafter pass fresh order of assessment and as such, impugned order is contrary to law and hence unsustainable. That various other adverse finding recorded in the notice under section 144/148 of the Act and also in impugned order are factually incorrect, vague, legally misconceived and untenable. That while passing the order u/s 144/148 of the Act the learned Commissioner of Income Tax can not travel beyond the show cause notice and therefore findings and observation and also the material relied upon not referred in the show cause notice but made part of the order could neither in law and nor on fact be made a basis to assume jurisdiction u/s 144/148 of the Act and thus order on this ground alone deserve to be quashed as such.

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that section 144/148 of IT Act and cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry in other words. allegation of proper enquiry or independence enquiry cannot be a valid basis to invoke section 144/148 of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting opportunity to explain to appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and vitiated order.” 12. On the basis of the same enquiry report, the AO reopened the assessment vide notice under section 148 dated 07.04.2015. The AO made addition of Rs. 3,75,000/- towards unexplained investment in purchase of land. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the assessee has not purchased any land for the year under consideration from (Late) Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal. Thus, the assessee has denied any such transaction or alleged investment in purchase of land. The CIT(A) called for a remand report. In the remand report, the AO reiterated addition as made in the assessment order. 13. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no record of purchasing of the alleged land for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/- from Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal. The learned AR has submitted that the only transaction between the assessee and Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal was regarding the purchase of Godown for consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- which was the subject matter of assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, the AO has reopened the assessment without any basis and made the addition of Rs. 3,75,000/- which is unjustified and arbitrary. 14. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan 15. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The enquiry report dated 09.02.2015 received by the AO from the ADI(Inv), Varanasi, reads as under:-

“F.No.ADIT(Inv.)/VNS/TEP-Charanjit Sehgal/14-15/456 Dated 09.02.2015 To The Jt. Director of Income Tax(Inv.) Varanasi. Sir, Sub.: Enquiry report in the case of Sh. Charanjit Sehgal, UIN 110954191Y, Bhadohi-regarding. The above case of TEP in the case of Sh Charanjit Sehgal was assigned to ITO(Inv) Varanasi. Open enquiry was conducted by the ITO(Inv) and the allegations were that 1. The assessee has evaded Capital Gain Taxes on the sale of Godown etc and also on the sale of Residential Plot which was sold vide sale deed dated 31/08/2007 and 11/03/2011 respectively. 2. It was also alleged that deemed Gift tax has also been evaded. 3. Huge transaction have been made in cash. 2. Enquiries were conducted by the ITO(Inv) and reply was filed by Sh Charanjit Singh. 3. The assessee by way of will had acquired property on 28/10/1992. The same was sold to Shri Abdullah Khan having PAN No AKYPK9399L for Rs 13 lakhs. 4. ITO(Inv) has made calculations and has opined that the case was covered u/s 50C and the value as per the stamp duty has been estimated at Rs 21,80,000/- and has computed Long term Capital Gains at Rs 15,42,000/-Thus the income for A/Y 2008-09 has escaped assessment. 5. Similarly, the ITO has opined that the purchaser Sh. Abdullah had purchased the property for 13 lakhs the source of which has not been explained. 6. Apart from this Sh Charanjit Singh had sold one more plot for Rs 3,75,000/- whose value as per registration has been computed at Rs 14,05,000/- in view of the provisions of section 50C for A/Y 2011-12. 7. In view of the above it is suggested that the report may be transferred to the jurisdictional assessing officer of Shri Charanjit Sehgal as well as Sh Abdullah Khan to take action u/s 147 for A/Y 2008-2009 and Sh Charanjit Singh for A/Y 2011-12 also. 8. The copy of the report of the ITO(Inv) is hereby enclosed with the annexure. 9. Since the case involves Limitation by 31.03.2015, the report is being sent to the AO under intimation to the Range Head and the CIT, Varanasi' 10. This may be treated as final report and pendency of the reference may be deleted accordingly. Encl: As above Sd/- (Lalit Kishore) Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit-I, Varanasi.” 13

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan

ITA Nos.22 & 23/Alld/2022 AYs: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Abdullah Khan the AO is baseless and liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 17. In the result, appeal in ITA No. 22/Alld/2022 for the assessment year 2008-09 is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal in ITA No. 23/Alld/2022 for the assessment year 2011-12 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.12.2022 at Allahabad in accordance with Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- VIJAY PAL RAO [JUDICIAL MEMBER] Dated: 20.12.2022 sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT- 5. DR - By order Sr. P.S.