IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.2412/Del/2018 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2009-10 NEHA GUPTA, बनाम ITO, Rujhaan Studio, 10, Vs. Ward 35(5), Commissioner Lane, Kripa Narain Marg, New Delhi.

Civil Lines, New Delhi.

PAN No.AAZPG1894J अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri V.K. Agarwal, Adv. &

Shri Hrithik Lamba, Adv.

Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 08.10.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 17.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-12, New Delhi dated 14.12.2017 for the AY 2009-10.

2. The assessee in her appeal raised the following grounds:

1. “Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)

grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the assessment order which is ex-facie illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction being against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of IT Act, 1961.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the assessment order in spite of the fact that notice issued u/s 148 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the assessment order in spite of the fact that approval u/s 151 of the IT Act, 1961 was not attached with reasons forwarded to the appellant.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in not allowing relief u/s 50G without appreciating the fact in proper perspective.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in not allowing relief u/s 50G in spite of the fact that industrial unit has been shifted from Urban Area to Non Urban Area and not from one Urban Area to another Urban Area as notified by the Central Government vide notification no. SO 619(E) dt. 27/04/2006 and in holding that this issue has not been addressed before him (para 20) though the submission on this issue were filed vide para 12 of written submission dt.

11/12/2017.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- made u/s 50C/50G of the IT Act, 1961 in spite of the fact that investment in new asset being Rs.69,43,070/- is much more than the capital gain on transfer of old asset.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- made u/s 50C of the IT Act, 1961.

8. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in ignoring the ground no. 9 where in it is requested that without prejudice to other grounds, addition u/s 50G is w.r.t to sale of capital asset, any addition will amount to capital gain only and not income from other source.”

3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground no.8 of grounds of appeal is not pressed. Accordingly ground no.8 of grounds of appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

4. Coming to ground nos. 6 & 7 i.e. in respect of application of provisions u/s 50C of the Act the Ld. Counsel submits that during the assessment year under consideration the assessee sold industrial unit at Narela, Delhi for a consideration of Rs.60 lakhs on 28.08.2008. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee paid stamp duty on the valuation adopted by the Sub Registrar at Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Ld. Counsel submitted that Assessee objected to the value adopted by the stamp value authority and therefore, the Ld. AO made a reference to the DVO on 28/01/2016. Ld. Counsel submitted that the DVO vide letter dated 11/3/2016 (Pg: 19, PB) wrote to the Ld. AO that the purchaser of the property has not allowed his team to enter the premises. A copy of this letter was also given to the appellant. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessee vide letter dated 23/3/2016 (Pg: 20, PB) requested the Ld. AO to