IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘E’: NEW DELHI.

BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5124/ DEL/2025 (Assessment Year : 2012-13)

Rohit Manchanda Vs. ITO C/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates Ward 5(3)(2) L-7A (LGF), South Extension Part II, Gautam Budh Nagar New Delhi 110049 Uttar Pradesh (PAN: AGRPM4551B)

ASSESSEE BY : Sh. Raj Kumar, CA &

Sh. J. P. Sharma, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date of Order : 12.02.2026

O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘ld. CIT(A)’) dated 18.08.2025 for AY 2012-13.

2. Brief facts of the case are, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on the basis of information available with him that assessee had sold an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.1.83 crores during the financial year 2011-12 related to assessment year 2012-13 on the basis of Non-PAN based AIR information.

3. On the basis of above, verification notice was issued to the assessee on

02.01.2019 but no compliance was made by the assessee. Since assessee has not replied to the query letter, notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2019 and sent to the assessee through speed post. Further, notice u/s 142(1) was issued and since there was no compliance, finally a show cause notice was issued u/s 144 of the Act. Since there was no compliance the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by considering the sale consideration as per the sale deed u/s 50c of the Act of Rs.1.83 crores and he estimated the index cost of acquisition of Rs.54.90 lakhs and proceeded to make the addition 50% of the above Long Term Capital Gain by earned the assessee at Rs. 64.05 lakhs.

4. Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed detailed submissions and raised several issues on maintenance and reopening of the assessment and further filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A). A remand report was called from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer objected to the acceptance of additional evidence at this stage and in response of above remand report assessee filed a detailed submissions which is reproduced at para 5.2 of the appellate order. After considering the same Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the grounds raised by the assessee.

5. Aggrieved with the above order assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:-

1. That in the absence of service of notice U/s. 148, complete proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. That under the facts and circumstances the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 are illegal, mechanical, without application of mind, on wrong facts and contrary to law, hence liable to be quashed.

3. That under the facts and circumstances, approval u/s. 151 is illegal, mechanical, without application of mind, on wrong facts and contrary to law, hence not legally capable to provide approval for valid reopening.

4. That under the facts and circumstances, the complete proceedings being initiated and completed by the A.O. having no legally valid jurisdiction, makes the whole proceedings illegal and unsustainable in law.

5. That the impugned asstt. framed without taking into consideration the return filed u/s. 139 is illegal and unsustainable in law.

6. That under the facts and circumstances Ld. A.O. grossly erred in law as well as on merits in wrongly estimating the total cost of acquisition of complete property at Rs.54,90,000/- being 30% of circle rate at the time of sale being Rs.1,83,00,000/- and further erred in not giving the indexation benefit, thus erred in calculating LTCG at Rs.1,28,10,000/- against claimed at Nil (share of assessee is 50%).

7. That under the facts and circumstances, the assessee should