IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15]

Mrs. Meena Swarup, vs DCIT, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., PAN-AMRPS5792E New Delhi.

APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri R.S.Ahuja, CA &

Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv.

Respondent by Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated

14.12.2018 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-43, New Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.197/2016-17 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and is non-resident and return of income was filed on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of INR 47,320/- with ITO, Ward-22(4), Delhi in terms of the e-filing acknowledgement. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt. 21.09.2015 by ITO, Ward-28(4), Delhi-4. Thereafter, when assessee objected the jurisdiction of the AO who was conducting enquiries, case of assessee was transferred to DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi who based on the information that the assessee has claimed Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”) of INR 2,47,91,254/- as bogus made the addition of the same by invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act.

3. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:-

(A) “That on the facts & circumstances of the case the learned AO and CIT (A)-43 while passing the order U/s 143(3) and U/s 250 respectively erred in:

i) Invoking and confirming the provisions of Sec. 68 while ignoring that the assessee was neither required nor has maintained any Books of Accounts for the relevant Assessment Year.

ii) Confirming addition of Rs.2,47,91,254/- under section 68 which was returned as Long Term Capital Gain u/s 10(38).

ⅲ) Wrongly treating capital gain on sale of long-term equity shares of a listed company as income from other sources though the shares were sold through recognized stock exchange which has been duly subjected to security transaction Tax.

iv) Treating a transaction in ordinary course of investment of purchase and sale of share as accommodation entry.

v) Assessee has been denied an impartial hearing based on the principle of natural justice by not being furnished statement of people on which Income Tax officer has relied in passing the judgement and also being denied the opportunity to cross examine them.

(B) The assessee craves leave to add, Alter or amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing.”

4. Before us, assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal:-

1. “That the captioned appeal has been filed impugning the Order of Ld. CIT (A) dated 14.12.2018 passed u/s 250 if the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That Ld. CIT (A) in its Order upheld the additions made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 by the Ld. DCIT Cir 3(1)(2). International Taxation dated 31.12.2016.

3. That on going through the case file, the AR of the Assessee has realized that in the present case, the 143(2) notice was issued by the AO ward 30(2), who admittedly was not having jurisdiction over the Assessee since the Assessee was an NRI, evident from her ITR for AY 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, and jurisdiction over the Assessee lies with International Taxation. Therefore, the notice issued by an officer who did not have jurisdiction over the Assessee is invalid, as held in various judgments.

4. It is a matter of record that the case file was transferred to the International Taxation only at the behest of the AR of the Assessee. However, the Ld. DCIT, Cir 3(1)(2), International Taxation did not