ITA 5837/DEL/2019 Assessee Khazan Singh Anand, New Delhi ITO WARD- 40(5), New Delhi

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC-I”: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Video Conferencing)
ITA No. 5837/Del/2019
(Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Khazan Singh Anand,
Kothi No. 2, GF Kailash Enclave,
Pitampura, New Delhi
PAN: AAAPA1872A
(Appellant) 

Vs.

ITO,
Ward-40(5),
New Delhi
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Baldev Raj, CA
Revenue by: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 29/10/2020
Date of pronouncement 02/12/2020

O R D E R

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-14, New Delhi dated 22.05.2019 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein, the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, where total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 27,77,120/- against the return filed at Rs. 5,67,120/- passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the ITO, Ward-40(5), Delhi was dismissed.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order datedaslS,12.2016 passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 40(5), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. A.O."] under section 14313) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] and as upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 14, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"] is bad at law and mid ab initio.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the Applicability of section SOC of the Act cm transfer of lease hold land.

3. That, without prejudice to the ground no 2 : That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and its law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding Rs 42,10,000 as full value of consideration being the value adopted by stamp valuation authority, even when the Ld, AO had not referred this matter to Valuation Officer and or not followed the mandatory procedure law down U/S 50C(2 ) of the Act. where Appellant had disputed the value so adopted and submitted that value adopted by the stamp duty authority is higher than the fair market value.

4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred Rs. 6,38,302/- in upholding the addition to the tune of Rs, 22,10,000/- in short term capital gain as per provision of section 50 C of the Act 5.1 All the above-mentioned grounds are independent and without prejudice General ground to other.”

To know more in details find the attachment file