Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Meeta Vij, New Delhi vs Dcit Circle 28(1), New Delhi on 20 September, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI "E" BENCH: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.2599/Del/2023
[Assessment Year : 2013-14]
Meeta Vij, vs DCIT,
A-1/20,
1/20, Safdarjung Enclave, Circle-28(1),
New Delhi-11002
110029. New Delhi.
PAN-AAIPW4225H
AAIPW4225H
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by Shri Rajesh Mahana, Adv. &
Shri Vikram Kakar, Adv.
Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Singh, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 13.08.2024
Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2024
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed irected against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC"), Delhi dated 18.07.2023 for the assessment year 20 2013-14.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
appeal:-
1. "The Ld. Assessing Officer Circle 28(1) (Erstwhile Jurisdiction Circle 32(1), New Delhi, hereinafter referred as "AO" and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, hereinafter herein referred as "CIT "CIT-A"
A" has erred in law by enhancing the Deemed Rental Income by Rs24,000/ Rs24,000/- and ignoring the facts such as age of Property and construction, market scenario and correction in market value of the properties across the country.
2. The Ld. AO erred in law to enhance/add enhance/add-back back Rs60,90,660/-
Rs60,90,660/ to the total income in the absence of the DVO Report and further the Ld. CIT-
CIT Page | 1 A failed to appreciate the DVO Report submitted wherein the Fair Market Value of the Land was assessed @ Rs1,87,29,952/-
Rs1,87,29,952/ as per the he DVO Report, instead of Rs2,40,90,660/ Rs2,40,90,660/- as per the Assessment Order 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dt. 30.03.2016, hereinafter referred as "Impugned Orders".
3. The Ld. AO and CIT CIT-A A erred in law to ignore a Regd. Valuer Report for Valuation/Cost of Improvement correct and resultant of same, disallow 75% of the Cost of Improvement without any valid reasoning.
4. The Ld. AO and CIT CIT-A A erred in law to wide of the mark to duplicate enhancement of Income of Rs60,90,660/ Rs60,90,660/- as detailed herein:
a. Addition o off Rs60,90,660.00 on account of Sale consideration less than the stamp duty value, under the provisions of Section 50-C C of the IT Act, 1961. (Para 2 of Impugned Order).
b. Addition of Rs2,23,62,752.00 on account of Revised Computation of Capital Gain (Para 5 of Impugned Order) which is calculated considering the Stamp Duty Value i.e. Rs2,40,90,660/ Rs2,40,90,660/- and not the Sales consideration i.e. Rs1,80,00,000/ Rs1,80,00,000/-.
5. The Ld. AO and CIT CIT-A A erred in law and also to misread the facts of the case by considering Residential Land as Agricultural Land and to disallow the exemption U/s 54/54 B without considering the merits and other evidentiary facts related to the Sale and Purchase transaction resulting in L/T Capital Gain.
6. The Order passed the Ld. CIT CIT-A A and Impugned Order Orde is bad in law and against the facts of the case.
The Appellant crave permission to add, amend or alter any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing."
Page | 2
3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee filed her return off income, declaring total income at INR 20,39,370/-
20,39,370/ on 16.07.2013. The return of income so filed was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment by the Assessing Officer ("AO") under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the statutory notice, Ld.AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed supporting evidences. The AO after considering the material available on record and submi submissions ssions made before him, made assessment by making addition to the returned income of INR 24,000/- on account of deemed rental income income; addition of INR 60,90,660/- by invoking the provision of section 50C of the Act and INR 2,23,62,752/-
2,23,62,752/ by disallowing deduction duction claimed by the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Authority assessed the income of the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act vide assessment order dated 30.03.2016 at INR 3,05,16,780/ 3,05,16,780/- as against returned income at INR 20,39,370/-.
4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Thereby, he sustained the additions as made by AO.
5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. At the outset, apropos to the grounds of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions as made Page | 3 before him and also the grounds raised by him are not adjudicated. He submitted that it has caused miscarriage of justice to the assessee.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.
8. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the p parties arties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has raised multiple grounds before Ld.CIT(A) in Form No.35 and also made detailed submissions before him. It is seen from the order o that Ld.CIT(A) has not given any finding. For the sake of clarity, the relevant contents of the impugned order are reproduced as under:-
3.2. "The The appellant now submits that she sold a property situated at Kanjhawala, Delhi for a consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000/-
Rs.1,80,00 on 29/10/2012. The total area of the land was 1 Bigha&16 Biswa. This land corresponding to Plot No.135, Khasra No.144/135 was situated in Village Kanjhawala, Delhi 110 081. The appellant further explains that this land was purchased on 22/05/2007 fo forr a consideration of Rs.8,10,000/-.. The appellant further submits that she has incurred Rs. 11,50,500/ 11,50,500/- as cost of improvement of the said property and that this was spent on erection of boundary wall and steel gate to the said property. In support of this expenditure, the appellant has relied upon report from M/s. Stepping Stone Consultants Pvt. Ltd. dated 08/03/2016. Based on this, the appellant claims that the claim of improvement of property to the tune of Rs. 11,50,500/-
11,50,500/ should be allowed to her.
3.3. Facts on record and appellant's submissions have been examined. It is seen that the plot No.135, Khasra No.144/135 (116) admeasuring 1 Bigha& 16 Biswa located in Village Kanjhawala, Delhi 110 081 was Page | 4 a residential plot and not an agricultural land. As per the Income-tax Act only when an agricultural land is sold and the sale proceeds are applied for the purchase of another agricultural land then tax exemption u/s.54/54B is available to the said taxpayer which is not the case here. Further, Section 54F is al also so not applicable in this case as the capital gains arising out of the sale of the said residential plot has not been re re-invested invested in purchase of another residential house rather has been utilized towards purchase of agricultural land. Therefore, this part of appellant's appeal is dismissed.
3.4. As regards the cost of improvement, the appellant claims that these improvements were made during F.Y. 2009 2009-10, 10, however, no supporting evidence was produced before the AO. Instead, the, appellant submitted to the AO a valuation report prepared by M/s. Stepping Stone Consultant Pvt. Ltd. This report is dated 08/03/2016. It is to be noted that the ITR for A.Y. 2013 2013-14 14 was filed by the appellant on 16/07/2013. From the valuation report, it is seen that the date of valua valuation tion was 08/03/2016 and site inspection was done two days before that, i.e., 06/03/2016. Thus, it is obvious that the report incorporated pre pre-defined defined figures of Rs.11,50,500/-
Rs.11,50,500/ and is nothing but an afterthought by the appellant to avoid taxes. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the AO. Therefore, this part of the appeal of the appellant is dismissed."
9. From the above, it is clear that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adverted to the submissions of the assessee which has been specifically subm submitted itted before him vide letters dated 17.11.2017 and 09.10.2019. In our considered view, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered the submissions of the assessee. We therefore, therefore looking to the facts and to sub-serve serve the principle of justice, set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal filed before Ld.CIT(A) Ld.CIT(A), to decide afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee and material available on Page | 5 record by way of a speaking order. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical tatistical purposes.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th September,, 2024.
202 Sd/- Sd
d/-
(BRAJESH
BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (KUL
KUL BHARAT)
BHARAT
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Amit Kumar *
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI
Page | 6