AMARJEET SINGH BHATIA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 23, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2837/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) Amarjeet Singh Bhatia Pr.CIT Q/913, 3rd Floor Vs. Delhi-23 Jangpura Extension New Delhi-110 014 PAN-AAMPB 6624R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 01/08/2023 Date of Pronouncement 20/10/2023

ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the

Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23,

Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] u/s 263 dated

26/03/2018 against the order passed by Income Tax Officer,

Ward-67(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) u/s

143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’),

for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

Page 1 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT 2. Though, the assessee has raised several grounds before us:-

“1. The Order u/s 263 dated 26.03.2018 after a lapse of more than two years; was passed with extraordinary haste and is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Pr. CIT has erred in law and On facts in assuming jurisdiction in passing the order u/s 263. 3. Pr. CIT has erred in law in passing the order us 263, more so when the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The Pr. CIT has further erred in law in passing the order u/s 263, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the assessee; as explained above and extraordinary haste in passing the Order without according a reasonable opportunity depending on assessee's hospitalization and his heart surgery. 5. That the Pr CIT has failed to consider that that the assessment, as framed by the Assessing Officer was after due application of mind and after considering the detailed replies on various dates as filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. That without prejudice, the Pr CIT has wrongly and illegally held that the order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue when no independent enquiry has been made by PCIT. Hence the notice issued u's 263 and the order passed u/s 263 is illegal and bad in law. 7. That without prejudice, the PCIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the assessment order and directing the AO to make de novo assessment when his notice and order is limited to certain issues only. Hence the order passed us 263 is illegal and bad in law. 8. That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been properly construed and judiciously interpreted, hence the order u/s 263 is illegal and bad in law. 9. That the order of the PCIT and the manner it was served has caused an irreparable loss in my life: my husband having become bed ridden. 10. That PCIT Order directing the AO to keep in view the fact that proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act are not for the benefit of the assessee primafacie appears a biased and prejudicial direction to the AO and the Order u/s 263 be held void ab initio. 11. That the Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend the above Grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to

whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in invoking the revision

Page 2 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the

instant case.

opportunities were given to the assessee. The notices issued to the

assessee were not returned un-served. Despite that, the assessee

was not bothered to make his appearance either in person or

thorough his Authorized Representative right from the date of

listing of this appeal from 05/08/2021 onwards. Hence, there is no

point in waiting for the assessee. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose

of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR and based on materials

available on record.

on record. The assessee is an individual, a Senior Citizen, had

retired from Punjab & Sind Bank in April, 2017 earning income

from Pension. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed by the

assessee on 31/03/2014 declaring total income of Rs.5,11,020/-.

The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on

24/02/2016 determining the total income of Rs.5,11,020/- of the

assessee at Rs.5,13,660/-. This assessment was sought to be

Page 3 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT revised by the Ld. PCIT by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of

the Act.

Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

by issuing the following show cause notice dated 15/03/2018:-

The contents of this office notice u/s 263 of the IT Act dated 15.03.2018 (supra) are reproduced as under- "The assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.02.2016 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 67(4), New Delhi for AY 2013-14 in your case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the following reasons:- 1. A perusal of assessment records reveals that during the period relevant to AY 2013-14 your taxable Capital Gain was wrongly computed at Rs. Nil in view of the following reasons:- 2. You had declared the sale consideration of the house property bearing number Q 12-B, Jangpura Extension, 1 Floor, New Delhi-110014, which was sold on 27 February, 2013, during the relevant period at Rs 92,56,500 However, as per Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 30 August, 2012 in CS(OS) 643/ 2009 the case of Mr. Navendu versus Mr. Amrit S. Bhatia, placed on assessment recor the Hon'ble high court has given direction to Mr. Navendu, who is the buyer of you above referred property, to pay you an amount as under:- (i) Total sale consideration of the property Rs.69,50,000/- (ii) Less Part consideration paid earlier (-) Rs. 20,00,000/- Balance payable Rs. 49,50,000/- (iii) Interest on the balance amount @24% per annum we.f. 17.01.2009 till the date of order i.e. 30.08.2012 (+) Rs. 43.06.500/- Total Rs. 92,56,500/- In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (supra), it is crystal clear t you had received an amount of Rs.43,06 500 as interest in respect of above mentioned sale of property which should have been declared as interest income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. Also, you should have declared sales consideration at Rs.69,50,000/- as per the duly registered sale deed of the said property. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.43,06,500/-, received as interest in respect of above mentioned sale of property. should not be assessed as interest income under the head 'Income from Other Sources' and taxed accordingly. 3. Further, from the records, it is seen that you have claimed to have incurred in financial year 1994-95, the year of purchase of the house property bearing number Q 12- B, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014, an amount of Rs. 5,31,500/- as cost of Page 4 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT improvement incurred for only the 1 floor of the above said property. Further, during the assessment proceedings, you had vide submissions dated 29.01.2016 in "Explanatory Statement in respect of Sale of Residential House Property & Investment in Acquisition of New Residential House Property in lieu thereof" stated that for cost of improvement of Rs.5,31,500/- incurred more than 20 years back, there are no expense vouchers available now. The legal position in this regard is clear that whenever, the assessee is claiming any benefit of income or tax deduction/ exemption, the onus is him to establish that he is fully eligible to claim such deduction/ exemption. Also, it is pertinent to note that the purchase cost of entire property of Q 12-B, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 is Rs. 1,62,000/- and the amount claimed to have been spent by you for cost of improvement for only 1" floor of this property is Rs.5,31,500/-, which prima-facie appears to be on quite higher side and lacks substantiation with any documentary evidence. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.17,48,409/- claimed as indexed cost of improvement for the amount of Rs.5,31,500/- claimed to have been spent by you on only 1 floor of this property should not be disallowed and to this extent why your claim of deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act should not be modified.

Cheque No. Cheque passed in clearing on Amount(Rs.)

Page 5 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT 993429 23.04.2013 9,00,000/- 993430 23.04.2013 9,00,000/- 993431 23.04.2013 3,00,000/- 993435 07.05.2013 12,00,000/- 33,00,000/- It is soon that you had claimed to have made the payment of Rs 33,00,000/- to one Mrs. Ravinder Kaur, in April/May, 2013 whereas your date of the purchase of the this property is 06-09-2013 It is not clear as to how when you were not even the owner of the property Q-19B, Third Floor, Jangpura Extn., New Delhi, you had made payment for construction in respect of the said property.

Also, the photocopy of the 'Sale Deed of property- Q-198, Third Floor, Jangpura Extn, New Delhi furnished by you during the course of assessment proceedings shows that the property purchased is "Entire Third Floor with terrace over and above which has been purchased by you for a sale consideration of Rs. 38,00,000/- from Sh. Gurvinder Singh. No document has boon filed you during the assessment proceedings to evidence as to what construction has been made by Mrs. Ravinder Kaur to whom Rs 33 lacs are claimed to have been made in lieu of some construction made.

In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why no deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act should be allowed to you on this amount of Rs 33,00,000/- and to this extent why your claim of deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act should be modified/denied.

Page 6 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT 8. In view of what is narrated in the preceding pares & becomes quite clear that the deduction claimed by you as 64 of the IT Act is erroneous and therefore please show cause as to why the same should not be modified/ denied. 9. The AO in the assessment order has not disallowed any sort of deduction s 54 of the IT Act claimed by the assessee Therefore in view of the disparities in the assessment order noted above the assessment order under consideration primo-face appears to be erroneous in so for as is prejudicial to the interests of revenue to the extent as stated in the preceding paragraphs. 10. In view of the above, the exemption as claimed by you u/s 54 of the IT Act, allowed in full by the A.O. deserves to be revisited/disallowed. In view of the aforesaid masons, an opportunity of being heard is being allowed to you to show cause as to why the assessment made in your case should not be enhanced, modified or canceled to be made afresh. The hearing in your case is fixed for 19/03/2018 at 11.30 A.M in Room No. 315, 3rd Floor, B- Book, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi. You may attend the hearing along with documents in support of your contention, either in person or through your authorized representative.”

were made by the assessee in respect of the issues raised in show

cause notice dated 15/03/2018. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT

proceeded to treat the order passed by the order as erroneous and

prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the following aspects:-

“11. (i) In view of the facts as mentioned in the above paragraphs, it is clear that the assessee could not controvert the fact that-In view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 30th August, 2012 in CS (OS) 643/2009 in the case of Mr. Navendu versus Mr. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia placed on assessment records, he had received an amount of Rs 43,06,500/- as interest in respect of sale property-bearing number Q 12-B, Jangpura Extension, 1st Floor, New Delhi- 110014, which was sold on 27 February, 2013. The assessee should have declared such amount of Rs.43,06,500/- received as interest, as interest income under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Also, he should have declared sal consideration at Rs.69,50,000/- as per the duly registered sale deed of the sa property In view of the above, therefore, the assessee failed to show cause as why an amount of Rs 43.06,500/-, received as interest in respect of sale property bearing no. - Q 12-8, 1" Floor, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi - 11001 should not be assessed as his interest income under the head 'Income from Oth Sources and taxed accordingly.

Page 7 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT (ii) Also, it is clear that the assessee could not substantiate through any documentary evidence the cost of improvement (Repair and renovation) of Rs.5,31,600 claimed to have been incurred in financial year 1994-95 for the 1" floor only of the property bearing number Q 12-B, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014, which prima-facie appears to be on quite higher side, due to the fact that, the whole property (including land), bearing number Q 12-B, Jangpura Extension, Nee Delhi-110014 was purchased in the same financial year Le 1994-95 for amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (exclusive of Stamp Duty). The assessee even failed produce any corroborative evidence in the form of existence of matching amou of financial resources to the tune of Rs.6.94 lacs (appx) with him in financial ye 1994-95, which he claimed to have incurred on purchase of property beari number Q 12-B, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 and repair/ renovation first of this property. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is a salan employee in a bank with main source of income as salary only. The legal position in this regard is clear that whenever, the assessee is claiming any benefit of income or tax deduction/ exemption, the onus is on him to establish that he is fully eligible to claim such deduction/exemption. In view of the above, therefore, the assessee failed to furnish any explanation to why an amount of Rs. 17.48.409/- claimed as indexed cost of improvement t the amount of Rs 5,31,500/- claimed to have been spent by him on 1" floor only the property bearing no. - Q 12-B, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014, should n be disallowed being unsubstantiated and the working of capital gains u/s 48 of t IT Act and allowance of exemption claimed u/s 54 of the IT Act be modified a taxed accordingly. (iii) It is also clear that the assessee could not substantiate through any documentary evidence the cost of acquisition of Rs 1,62,000/- claimed to have been incurred financial year 1994-95 for only the 1" floor of the property bearing number Q 12 Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014. It is a fact that as per photocopy Purchase Deed dated 19 August, 1994 of the house property bearing number 12-B, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 filed by the assessee during t assessment proceedings, it is seen that the deed is for purchase of complete house property for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- + Stamp Duty charges Rs 12,000/-, totaling Rs.1,62,000/- Also, photocopy of Sale Deed dated 27th February 2013 of property Q 12-8. First Floor, Jangpura Extn, New Delhi, which is only for sale of first floor of the said property was perused. A perusal of Schedule of the said sale deed dated 27 02 2013, shows that the proportionate cost of land is 14" of the total land cost. Therefore, for the purpose of determining cost of acquisition of property bearing number Q 12-8. Jangpura Extension, 1 Floor New Delhi-110014 only 144 of the amount of Rs 1.62.000 has to be whereas as per Computation of Capital Gains filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, he has clamed whole of Rs 1.62,000 as purchase cost of property bearing number Q 12-8 Jangpura Extension, 1" Floor, New Des-110014. In view of the above, therefore the assessee failed to furnish any explanation as why an amount of Ra 5.32.911 claimed as indexed cost of purchase for the amount of Rs. 182.000 claimed to have been spent by him for only 1" floor of the property bearing no-0

Page 8 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT 12-8. Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014, should not be dialowed to the extent of its 34" amount and to this extent why his claim of deduction us 54 of the IT Act should not be modified being unsubstantiated and The working of capital gains us 48 of the IT Act and allowance of exemption clamed us 54 of the IT Act be modified and taxed accordingly. iv) Further. It is also clear that the assessee could not substantiate through any documentary evidence the investment of Rs 33.00.000/ claimed to have been incurred in acquisition of new asset- i.e. property bearing no- Q-198. Third Floor Jangpura Extn, New Delhi The assessee had claimed during the assessment proceedings that he had made the payment of Rs. 33,00,000 for additional construction to one Mrs Ravinder Kaur as under: Cheque No. Cheque passed in clearing on Amount(Rs.) 993429 23.04.2013 9,00,000/- 993430 23.04.2013 9,00,000/- 993431 23.04.2013 3,00,000/- 993435 07.05.2013 12,00,000/- 33,00,000/- It is that the assessee had claimed to have made the payment of Fs 33,00,000 to one Ms Ravinder Kaur, in April/May 2013 whereas the date of the phase of the property is 06-08- 2013. It is not clear as to how when the assessee was not even the owner of the property Q-198, Third Floor, Jangpura Exth, New Debs, he had made payment for construction in respect of the said. Also a perusal of the photocopy of the ‘Sale Deed’ of property-Q-196. Third Floor Jangpura Ext New Dei tuished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings shows that the property purchased is "Entire Third Floor with terrace over and above which has been purchased by the assessee for a sale consideration of Ra 38,00,000 from Sh. Gurvinder Singh. No document has been filed by the assessee either during the assessment proceedings or during these proceedings to evidence as to what constructions has been made by Mrs. Ravinder Kaur to whom Rs. 33 lacs are claimed to have been made in Seu of some construction made. Also no document has been filed by the assessee either during the assessment proceedings or during these proceedings to evidence any agreement with Mrs. Ravinder Kaur ie the contractor in respect of construction claimed.

Further, on perusal of the so called confirmation (from Smt Ravinder Kaur) furnished by the assessee during course of assessment proceedings. it is observed that she had only stated that she had received Rs 33 Lakhs from Sh. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, the assessee. The said document nowhere says that any money was received by Mrs. Ravinder Kaur for carrying out any construction work in her said confirmation letter she has only stated that she has received Rs 33.00.000 by way of cheques, without specifying any purpose.

Neither there is any documentary evidence furnished by the assessee either during the assessment proceedings or during the present proceedings to substantiate that he had actually made an agreement with Smt. Ravinder Kaur for any construction work. In this regard, a is not clear as to what construction work has been carried out by Mrs. Ravinder Kaur. Whether she is having any qualification as a contractor? Further, no documentary evidence whatsoever either during the assessment proceedings or during

Page 9 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT the present proceedings has been furnished to substantiate that Mrs. Ravinder Kaur has declared any income in her return of income, earned out of construction activity. No evidence whatsoever has been furnished in this regard at any stage.

In view of the above, therefore, the assessee failed to furnish any explanation as to why an amount of Rs 33,00,000/- claimed to have been invested in acquisition of new asset-le property bearing no -Q-198, Third Floor, Jangpura Extn, New Delhi should not be disallowed being unsubstantiated and why the deduction us 54 of the IT Act should not be modified/ denied accordingly

13 In view of the above, it is clear that the impugned assessment order was passed by the AO without causing necessary examination/ inquiries/ investigations. The AO could not take notice of all relevant facts and failed to examine the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the assessee in respect of his claim of Indexed Cost of Acquisition and indexed cost of Improvement of the asset sold as per provisions of the IT Act, 1961. Also, the AO could not take notice of all relevant facts and failed to examine the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the assessee in respect of investment made in acquisition of new asset, so as to claim exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act Further, the A.O could not take notice of all relevant facts and failed to notice assessee's non-offering for taxation interest income earned by him in terms of order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (supra). Consequently, the assessment order, passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by the A.O on 29.02.2016, was rendered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and hence the assessment is liable to be set aside to be done afresh as per law.

Page 10 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT claim of the assessee in respect of investment made in acquisition of new asset, granted to the assessee as discussed in this order. Further, the AO is directed to examine afresh and charge to tax assessee's non-offering for taxation interest income earned by him in terms of order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (supra), as discussed in this order To sum- up, the A.O. is directed to carry out the above directions, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a well reasoned fresh assessment order, after making all the disallowances which have been discussed in this order. 15. The AO is also directed to keep in view the fact that proceedings u/s 263 of the I T Act are not for the benefit of the assessee and hence, the assessee cannot make any fresh claim which is in his favour at the time of giving effect to this order.” 8. Even before us, the assessee could not furnish any evidence to

buttress the findings of the Ld. PCIT herein above with cogent

evidences. Hence, we do not deem it fit to interfere in the order

passed by the Ld. PCIT in peculiar facts and circumstances of the

instant case. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by the Ld.

PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and dismiss the grounds raised by the

assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th October, 2023.

Sd/- Sd/--/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 20/10/2023 Pk/sps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

Page 11 of 12

ITA No.2837/Del/2018 Amarjeet Singh Bhatia vs. Pr.CIT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

Page 12 of 12