Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4635 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-05-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
16-05-2023
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
18-05-2022
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1105/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ankur Gupta, P3/23, DLF Phase-2, Gurgaon. PAN: AKLPG5174E Versus Pr. CIT, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 16.05.2023 Date of pronouncement : 29.05.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 22.03.2022 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT)-1, Delhi pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. When the appeal was called out, no one appeared for the assessee. Even, there is no application on record seeking adjournment. On perusal ITA No. 1105/Del/2022 2 of record, it is observed that on the previous date of hearing, i.e., 27.02.2023, when the appeal was fixed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of the fact that date of hearing was notified to the assessee. Undisputedly, this is an appeal against an order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, hence, has to be decided on priority. It may also be a fact that the consequential order in pursuance to the impugned order must have been passed by the Assessing Officer in the meanwhile. However, still, the assessee is grossly negligent in its approach in pursuing the present appeal. Since sufficient opportunity of being heard has been extended to the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental representative and based on materials on record. 3. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 12.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.29,97,630/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed vide order dated 14.06.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act accepting the income returned by the assessee. After completion of assessment, as aforesaid, ld. PCIT called for and examined the assessment record by exercising his powers ITA No. 1105/Del/2022 3 u/s. 263 of the Act. While doing so, he noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold 7,50,000 shares of M/s. Cirracore LLC Georgia USA through agreement dated 15.12.2016 and earned long term capital gain of Rs.3.34 crores. He further observed that while computing long term capital gain, the assessee has stated that the units were allotted as ESOP for nil consideration. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed that entire long term capital gain was invested in a residential flat. Hence, deduction was claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. On examining the record, ld. PCIT found various deficiencies in the sale agreement of ESOP as well as various other issues. He observed that the Assessing Officer had not examined the audited balance sheet of the companies, whose shares were claimed to have been sold. He observed, the Assessing Officer also failed to ascertain the fact whether the sale consideration was correctly shown by the assessee. He also pointed out deficiencies regarding the initial payments. He observed, the Assessing Officer also failed to examine whether the assessee had actually purchased a flat before allowing deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid facts, ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice to the assessee seeking his reply as to why the assessment order should not be ITA No. 1105/Del/2022 4 held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly, set aside. After examining the reply of the assessee, learned PCIT ultimately concluded that while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry either regarding earning of long term capital gain or the deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. On the aforesaid premise, he set aside the assessment order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue relating to earning of long term capital gain and deduction claimed u/s. 54 of the Act. 4. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. As can be seen from the impugned order of ld. PCIT, he has noted various deficiencies in the assessment order, in the sense that, before accepting the long term capital gain and deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act thereon, the Assessing Officer has not made any effective enquiry at all. The aforesaid allegation of the Revisionary Authority remains uncontroverted before us, as the assessee has neither appeared nor filed any submission to demonstrate that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of section 263 of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order subjected to revisionary proceedings, it is noticed that assessee’s case ITA No. 1105/Del/2022 5 was selected for limited scrutiny only for the purpose of examining large deductions/exemption claimed under various provisions including section 54F of the Act. There is nothing either in the body of assessment order or any other material available on record to suggest that the Assessing Officer has enquired into the issues, for which, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the grounds raised. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.05.2023 *aks/-
