SACHIN DHAMIJA, Delhi V. ITO, Ward 36(3), New Delhi

ITA 2932/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0938 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH ROHTAGI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 250; 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2932/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sachin Dhamija, vs. ITO, Ward 36 (3), C-361, Majlis Park, Gali No.9, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 033. (PAN : AJIPD2855R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Saurabh Rohtagi, CA Shri Ashok Sharma, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date of Order : 04.03.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 21.08.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “l(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing ex-parte order without proper opportunity and in contravention of principles of natural justice. (ii) That in absence of adjudication of appeal on merits, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and in total disregard to provisions of section 250 (4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA No.2932/DEL/2023 (iii) That the impugned order dismissing the appeal is not sustainable on facts and the same is bad in law. 2(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.29,99,124/- being long term capital gain on sale of immovable property without appreciating the facts of the case. (ii) That the fair market value of the property sold being less than stamp duty value, the addition made u/s 50C without considering the valuation report of the valuation cell is highly arbitrary and in total disregard to provisions of section 50C(2) and (3) of the Act. (iii) That the upholding of addition u/s 50C(l) without calling for valuation report in terms of section 50C(2) is misconceived and contrary to law. (iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of indexed cost of improvement aggregating Rs.4,00,708/- even though the disallowance was without any valid justification or basis.” 3. At the outset, in this case, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that all the notices in this case were served by the ld. CIT (A) at a wrong email address, hence assessee had no opportunity to respond. He further submitted that by RTI application, he has obtained information that AO was to obtain DVO’s report in this case which was not received at the time of passing of assessment order. In the circumstances, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of AO to obtain DVO’s report and thereafter pass the assessment order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3 ITA No.2932/DEL/2023 4. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, I restore the issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue afresh and decide the case as per law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4 th day of March, 2024. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 4 th day of March, 2024 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.