DCIT, DELHI vs. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.2129/Del/2025 for AY 2012-13, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No.29/10491/2019-20 dated 30.01.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.12.2019 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the decision of the AO without considering the provision of Section 45(2) of the Act that speak about the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion or treatment as full value of consideration. II. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified that computation of income made by the AO while framing the assessment tantamounts to double addition. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal on hearing the learned DR and based on materials available on record. The assessment originally was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.2012 determining total income at Rs 14,37,30,269/- which was wholly adjusted against brought forward losses. The book profit under section 115JB of the Act was determined at Rs 10,48,797/-. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act after duly recording the reasons for reopening the assessment for assessment year 2012-13. Notice under section 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 28.3.2019 after taking prior approval or sanction of the competent authority under section 151 of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated 13.12.2019 submitted that the return already filed under section 139(1) may be considered as a return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The learned AO noted that the sub-