TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that initiation of the re-assessment proceeding and reassessment order are bad both on facts and in law and liable to be quashed, as the statutory conditions and procedure prescribed under the Statute have not been complied with. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Id. A.O are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of Notice u/s 148 of the Ac are not valid in the eye of law. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act in the case have been initiated contrary to the statutory requirements prescribed u/s 151 of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the gain resulting from agricultural land was not liable to be considered as income u/s 45 of the Act having regard to provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act. 12. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the Id. A.O has grossly erred in making additions in the declared income u/s 144 of the Act without conducting proper enquiry, basis, material or evidence in support of the additions made by him and further without providing the adequate and sufficient opportunity to the appellant to provide clarifications in support of returned income. 13. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the Officer was wholly unjustified in not uniformally adopting cost of acquisition and cost of improvement in computing long term capital gains under the hands of all co-owners. 14. That on the facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed off on the basis of the material available on record. 6. It is seen from the record that the present appeal is barred by time, the assessee has filed application seeking condontion of delay. The contention of the assessee is that the impugned order dated 10th December, 2018 was received by the assessee on 15th January, 2019. Assessee gave this order to his Counsel for preparing the appeal but the appeal was not filed owing to the fact that the order was misplaced by the Counsel in his office. Therefore, the assessee applied for certified copy which was received on 16/4/2019 and the present appeal came to be filed on 13/6/2019. However, he submitted that delay in filing was not deliberate and the assessee has not benefitted by not filing the appeal in time in any way. An affidavit to this effect has been filed by the assessee dated 12th June, 2019. It is seen that the present appeal was required to be filed within 60 days of the receipt of the order. Admittedly the order was received on 15/1/2019 as per the assessee. Therefore, the appeal should have been filed by 14th March, 2019. The assessee has filed present appeal on 13/6/2019. Therefore, there is a delay of 86 days in fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he documents and any other evidence in support of assessee ease. In response CA Sh. Kalpit Sultania, A.R. of the assesses attended the assessment proceedings and filed partly submission on 27.12,2017 and case was adjourned to next date 28 12.2017 but none attended. Looking to the Time Barring Matter which is getting baited by limitation on 31.12.2017 and the undersigned has no alternative but to complete the assessment proceedings u/s 144 of the LT. Act, 1961 as per material available on record. Therefore, keeping in view the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee, a final show cause notice was served upon the assessee on 10/11/2017 through speed post fixing the ease for hearing on 17.11.2017 .Wherein it was made very dear that in case of non-compliance to this notice, his ease will be decided ex-parte as per the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 and on the basis of the material available on record without any further opportunity. The same is reproduced as under: "From the perusal of details filed by you and information available with this office it is evident that you made a sale deed of a property situated at Mundka during the period 01.04.2009 to 31/3/2020 amounting to R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10,07,610 Less: = 62,84,057 = 19,94,938/- 42,89,119/- Therefore, I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income penalty u/s 271(1) 1 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated separately on this issue by issuing a penalty notice. (Addition of Rs. 42,89,119/-) 14. On appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) and decided the issue by observing as under:- " 8. In view of the above discussion ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal are dismissed. As regards Ground No. 7, Circle rate of the valuation of land by the stamp duty authorities is an indicator of the fair market value of the land in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The Assessing Officer has already taken the stamp duty valuation on 01.04.1081 as the fair market value of the land. To establish the contrary the assessee was expected to file a, valuation report from a competent valuer of agricultural land before the Assessing officer. It needs to be clarified that the authorized valuer for agricultural land and the registered valuers for other properties are different professionals competent to issued valuation reports of different types of property. 9. In the written submission, the assessee also claimed ....