IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 3418/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Raj Rani Gupta, vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), 506, 2^nd floor, Delhi Sharap Bhawan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, New Delhi (PAN: AEQPG5421B)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CA &

Ms. Shuriti Khandelwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2025 ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year

2015-16 on the following grounds:-

1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. NFAC/2014- 15/10221239 has erred in passing order dated 19.3.2025 in contravention of provisions of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO of initiating, continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s. 148 r.w.s. 147 and hence the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed.

3. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO of making addition in the assessment order on an issue for which no reasons had been recorded and at the same time, making addition on the issue on which reasons were recorded.

4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned addition of Rs. 47,81149/- as Long Term Capital Gain on account of alleged sale of immovable under SARFESI Act.

5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

6. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion, or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file any return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 within due date. In this case, the AO received some information through Project Insight Portal that assessee had sold immovable property for Rs. 72,20,000/-. Hence proceedings u/s. 148A of the Act was initiated and the AO passed order u./s. 148A(d) of the Act on 06.04.2022. On the same date, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued. In response to the notice the assessee filed ITR on 27.4.2022 by declaring nil income. During the course of reassessment proceeding the assessee submitted that she stood as a guarantor and had mortgaged her properties on behalf of M/s Sainsons Pulp and Paper Ltd. for securing loan for that company from SBI. As per her submission, that loan availed by the company was later turned into NPA and subsequently her properties were sold by the banker under SARFAESI Act. Through e-auction on 06.03.2015. The assessee has submitted before the AO that, the entire sale consideration was directly paid by the purchaser to the bank and she did not receive any sale consideration and hence she did not offer any capital gain. In addition to the submission on merit, the assessee also challenged the validity of notice issued u/.s 148 of the Act on 6.4.2022 by stating that it was issued beyond the time limit of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, the AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held that assessee was liable to take capital gain on the property that was transferred during the relevant assessment year as the property was belonging to the assessee. Accordingly, LTCG was computed into Rs. 47,81,149/-. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on jurisdiction as well as on merits. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the T