What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee appeared in person and stated they did not wish to press the appeal, requesting to withdraw the case. The Department had no objection.

The assessee appealed an order confirming the Income Tax Officer's valuation of property sale consideration for capital gains calculation. The assessee claimed a lower sale price than what was determined by the authorities.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the property's sale consideration for long-term capital gains computation and the assessee's right to cross-examine the valuation officer.

Manoj Juneja vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Juneja

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Hearing: 26.04.2023Pronounced: 26.04.2023

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 21.11.2016, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi was not justified in confirming the order of Income Tax Officer Ward 35 (2), New Delhi who considered the sale consideration of property at Ankur Vihar for Rs. 26,34,750/- as against the actual price received by the appellant amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- for the purpose of computing longterm capital gain 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi was not justified in confirming the order of Income Tax Officer Ward 35 (2), New Delhi who did not supply the appellant a copy of valuation report which determined the sale consideration for Rs. 26,34,750/-

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi was not justified in confirming the order of Income Tax Officer Ward 35 (2), New Delhi who did not afford an opportunity to the appellant to cross- examine the valuation officer.

4. Any other ground which is relevant on the above subject, with your kind permission.”

At the hearing the assessee appeared in person and stated that he does not wish to press this appeal. In this regard an application dated 26.04.2023 is placed on record stating therein that he wishes to withdraw the case and would deposit the outstanding demand within six to seven months.

Learned DR has no objection.

At the request of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee would be at liberty to pursue his remedy regarding concession for deposit of impugned tax demand with the Revenue authorities.

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in open court on 26th April, 2023.

MANOJ JUNEJA,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments