AI Insights
The case involved an appeal by Smt Kamlesh Gupta against the order dated 20.12.2022 from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which pertained to the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issues in the appeal included the validity of a notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, and disputes regarding the acceptance of construction costs claimed by the assessee for various financial years. The assessee contested the partial acceptance of construction costs and the methodology used in issuing the notice, referencing decisions from previous ITAT cases. However, following the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, the assessee decided to withdraw the appeal, which was unopposed by the Departmental Representative.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471458 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
13-12-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
27-01-2023
Judgement Text
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.22/LKW/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt Kamlesh Gupta 35, Latouch Road, Lucknow- 226018. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-V, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AGQPG6712M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri. Saurabh Dubey, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. BECAUSE the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not correct in upholding the validity of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology even through the said notice did not meet the requirement of law laid down in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act. 1.2 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad Bench in the case of Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. The ACIT in ITA No. 113/Alld/2013 and the subsequent decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench ‘SMC’ in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption) in ITA No. 663/LKW/2016 are ipso facto applicable to the case in hand and as such the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed in pursuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.09.2015 issued on the basis of CASS methodology deserves to be held as null and void. ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 3 2. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not correct in accepting only 16.77% of the construction cost claimed by the assessee for the previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 and in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the indexed cost accordingly instead of accepting the full cost of construction claimed by the assessee for the above mentioned previous years. 3. BECAUSE while accepting only part of the construction cost for various years, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the material and information as well as the affidavit of the appellant placed before him in support of the construction cost claimed for Previous year 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007- 08. 4. BECAUSE merely due to an in-advertent mistake in mentioning the lesser constructed area of the property (sold by the assessee) in the sale deed, the assessee’s claim for the actual constructed area and construction cost could not have been denied and keeping in view the material and information including the sworn affidavit of the assessee placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the entire cost of construction and actual constructed area claimed by the assessee for F.Y. 2001-02, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. BECAUSE the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on presumption, conjecture and surmises, without appreciating the evidences placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and Principles of natural justice.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 06.12.2024 along with Form no. 2 is placed on record. The relevant contents of the letter dated 06.12.2024 is reproduced as under: - “The aforesaid appeal, which is fixed for hearing on 12.12.2024, was filed by the undersigned assessee on 27.01.2023, against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that in relation to aforesaid appeal, the appellant assessee had filed a declaration in Form 1 under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024. In response to the declaration filed by the appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow has issued a certificate in Form no. 2. A copy of Form 2 is enclosed. 3. As the appellant has opted for the settlement under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2024, she is withdrawing the aforesaid appeal. Prayer 4. In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that the captioned appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn by me.” ITA No.22/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 3 3. The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 4. In view of the facts discussed above, we permit the assessee to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 13/12/2024 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar "
Other Referred Cases
Obeetee (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The ACIT, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption)
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
HUF Deed
Mehul₹500
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026