KANTA BHATIA LEGAL HEIR OF PARMOD KUMAR BHAITA,FARIDABAD V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

ITA 5019/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 22852 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND BHASKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Search and seizure; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 132; 153A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5019/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanta Bhatia Legal Heir of Pramod Kumar Bhatia, M/s. P.K. Steels Plot No.101, NH- 5, NIT Faridabad, Haryana- 121006 PAN No.AEFPB6566H Vs. DCIT Central Circle – 25 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Anand Bhaskar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20/02/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 12.08.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 2 1 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and ignoring the principle of natural justice and ignoring the facts of the case, statutory provisions of Income Tax Act. 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing officer while making the addition failed to consider the fact that no incriminating documents have been found during search and as such addition made in the order u/s 153A/143(3) is bad in law and hence liable to be deleted 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Assessing officer u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act without taking prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and hence liable to be quashed 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned addition of Rs 30,29,846/-/- by alleging that evidence in support of the cost of acquisition have not been submitted by appellant is factually incorrect, arbitrary, have no base, is against the statutory provisions of Income Tax Act and the addition has been made by recording incorrect facts and findings and without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual ground. 3 4 That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee on 05.10.2017. Thereafter the Pr. CIT Faridabad vide order dated 20.08.2018 passed u/s. 127 of the Act has transferred jurisdiction in the case of assessee from Ward-2 (1) Faridabad to this circle. Consequently, notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued on 30.09.2019 asking the assessee to file return within 15 days of receipt of the notice. Notice u/s. 142 (1) of the Act along with a questionnaire requiring certain details, documents and explanations was issued on 17.10.2019. In response the return of income was filed declaring income of Rs 45,84,260/-. The, AO has completed the assessment by making the addition of Rs. 69,70,148/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee has filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in which the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing as under: DECISION: 6. Ground No. 1 & 2: These grounds of appeal raised by the appellant pertain to the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned Assessing officer while making the addition 4 failed to consider the fact that no incriminating documents have been found during search and as such addition made in the order u/s 153A/143(3) is bad in law and hence liable to be deleted. It is pertinent here to mention that the search was conducted on 05.10.2017, and the relevant assessment year l.e.2017-18, thus was not a completed year. Thus, the contention raised by the appellant is false and baseless and deserves to be deleted. 7. Ground No.3: This ground of appeal raised by the appellant pertains to that the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned Assessing officer u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act without taking prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and hence liable to be quashed. The appellant has failed to brought any evidence on record with regard to his claim that the order was passed without taking prior approval u/s 153D of the Act. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant found to be baseless and hence dismissed. 8. Ground No. 4: This ground of appeal pertains to addition of Rs.30,29,846/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The appellant has contended that the addition made is factually incorrect, arbitrary, have no base, is against the statutory provisions of Income Tax Act and the addition has been made by recording incorrect facts and findings and without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 8.1 From the assessment order, it is observed that the assessee has not 5 been able to furnish any documentary evidence during the course of assessment proceedings, further, even after four years the appellant has not been able to substantiate its claim regarding cost of acquisition of land/building for the purpose of computing the Long Term Capital Gain. In view of the same, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the AO and hence, the addition made by the AO is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 5: This ground of appeal pertains to charging of interest andinitiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act. Charging of interest under the Act is mandatory in nature, thus, the AO is directed to verify. the claim of the appellant and take appropriate action as per law. Issue of penalty proceedings is premature and does not require adjudication at this stage, 10. Ground No. 6: This Ground is general in nature. 11. In the result the appeal is \"Dismissed\" 5. None is responding for assessee. The DR has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has given the 21 opportunities to the assessee but assessee has failed to avail the opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and fair play we deem fit to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) 6 with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:-.02.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "