IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’ AT NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 72/Del/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jai Gogia, DCIT (International H. No. 677 Sector-16, v. Taxation), Noida.

Faridabad-121001 (Haryana), India.

(cid:1)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AGSPG 1452 C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee represented by : Shri Meenal Goyal, CA;

Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Adv.; &

Shri Deepanshu Mehta, Adv.

Department represented by: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)

Date of Hearing 07.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM:

This appeal in ITA No. 72/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 has arisen from the assessment order dated 15.12.2022 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-

23/1048037794(1)), passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to directions issued by the learned DRP dated 04.11.2022 passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act.

2. Revised grounds of appeal raised by the assessee with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, read as under:

1. That on the facts and in law the impugned reassessment order is void ab initio in the absence of any (recorded) reason to believe that income of Rs. 90,12,585/- vide impugned addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), chargeable to tax thereunder, had escaped assessment qua subject assessment year 2016-17.

2. That on the facts and in law, the impugned reassessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 15.12.2022 and impugned addition made therein is legally unsustainable as the impugned reassessment proceeding has admittedly been initiated for mere "verification" (vide Onir Infraspace Ltd. v. ITO., [2024] 168 taxmann.com 21 (Gujarat)) and not qua any reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for subject assessment year.

3. That on the facts and in law, the impugned addition (i.e. other alleged income coming to notice subsequently) is legally unsustainable in absence of any addition qua reason to believe (purportedly recorded as to "verify" the source of the investment in the property) vide Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and Neetu Bhoi v. ITO., [2024] 163 taxmann.com 190 (Raipur Trib.).

4. That the impugned addition is legally unsustainable for unlawfully ignoring the Appellant's submissions qua binding ratio of Sri Sandeep Patil v. ITO., ITA No. 924/Bang/2019 (i.e. difference between value adopted by stamp valuation authority and actual consideration is to be ignored if less than 10%) and for wilful failure to apply the said decision on the perverse basis that same not binding on the Ld. Assessing Officer, contrary also to ratio vide Union of India v. Kamlakshmi Finance Corpn. Ltd., AIR 1992 SC

711.

5. That the Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law as the purported stamp value duty has been incorrectly and arbitrary calculated, without any independent inquiry or application of mind.

6. That on the facts and in law, the impugned penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in consequence of the legally unsustainable impugned addition vide impugned reassessment order is erroneous and unsustainable in law.

7. The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or vary any of the above grounds of appeal at any time during the pendency of the present appeal or at the time of hearing before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available, the AO observed that the assessee, a non-resident, during F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17 had purchased an immovable property (Flat No. K-054, Gulshan Vivante, Plot no. GH-07/A, Sector-137, Noida) for a consideration of Rs. 1,29,41,700/- on 22.03.2016. To verify the source of the investments made by the assesseein purchase of the aforesaid property, the AO reopened the assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act ,and notice u/s 148dated 28.03