Sanju Sinha vs. ITO, Ward 6(1)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Sanju Sinha, the appellant, filed an appeal against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which arose from the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised several grounds for appeal, including the lack of proper opportunity to be heard, incorrect computation of capital gain, and illegal initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions prevented them from appearing before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the Covid-19 restrictions, and decided to restore the issues to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for necessary adjudication.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The order passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act by the Id. CIT (A) is bad and illegal because the proper opportunity has not been provided to the appellant.
• 2. The assessing officer has computed capital gain on hypothetical sell consideration without looking to the fact available on record.
• 3. The Assessing Officer erred in computing capital gain in the assessment year 2015-16.
• 4. The proceeding initiated under section 147 of the income tax act for re-assessment is illegal and without jurisdiction.
• 5. The assessing officer had not deducted index cost while making assessment.
• 6. The order of assessment as well as appellate order is bad and unreasonable.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• White Orchid Hospitality (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2021-22Allowed

• Kalyani Koley vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Minerva Natya Sanskriti Charcha Kendra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Kolkata bench

• Gita M Shah Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

  Mumbai benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Paras Meghraj Jain (HUF) vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(5)

  Mumbai bench

• M/s. Everlike Mercandise Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed