IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.2763/Del/2025 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2017-18 AAKANKSHA GUPTA, बनाम INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/o CA Vaibhav Goel, Vs. Ward 69(1), 78, Navyug Market, 1^st Floor, New Delhi.

Ghazaibad, Uttar Pradesh.

PAN No.AMHPG9430D अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Vaibhav Goel, CA Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 10.12.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 10.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1. The present appeal arises from order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO passed an ex parteorder dated 26.03.2022, through which an addition of Rs.72,99,800/- was made by computing short term capital gain on sale of property.

1.1 The assessee, thereafter, approached the Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee is seen to have taken grounds of appeal which challenge the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO. Briefly, the assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was never served on the assessee since an old e-mail, which was not in use, was used to send the requisite notices. The assessee also challenged the non-supply of reasons for reopening, and also on the ground that the new procedure laid down in section 144B of the Act was not complied with by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have dismissed the grounds pertaining to these issues in pages 8 to 12 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the grounds pertaining to the impugned additions.

1.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

1. “That, on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the evidences and submissions made by the appellant.

2. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in denying the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of new additional floors constructed by the appellant.

3. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the Ld AO and upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings despite the fact that Ld JAO had not validly assumed jurisdiction without issuance and service of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within the limitation period prescribed u/s 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; That, mere uploading of notice at e-filing portal and sending email at old/unconnected email address (sid.aks2Q08@gmail.com) does not amount to valid issuance of notice;

3.1 That, on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the reassessment proceedings despite being barred by limitation; That, the first notice to be received by the appellant qua the AY was dated 15.03.2022 when the provisions of section 147 (prior to amendment brought by Finance Act, 202-21) had ceased to exist;

4. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining there-assessment proceedings initiated based on mechanical approval by the specifiedauthority; That, the specified authority failed to take cognizance of-

- approval was sought u/s 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was not existing as on 23.03.2021;

- the amount of aggregate sale consideration recorded in reasons to believe was Rs.77 lacs without specifying the particulars like address of the property sold, name of the buyer, dates of transaction etc or supplying the basis of such information in the possession of the AO;

- the fact that sale consideration on transfer of capital asset does not represent ’income’ and thus, without quantification or determination of amount of capital gains, valid jurisdiction cannot be assumed;

5. That on fac