9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner as well. See Dharam Pal Singh Rao Vs. Income-Tax Officer and another, [2004 (8) TMI 88 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - decided against assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 264 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2018 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Deepak Kumar Pal For the Respondent : S.S.C.,Piyush Agarwal ORDER 1. This appeal and other connected appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) have been filed by different assessees against the common order dated 18th July, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench SMC , New Delhi in ITA Nos. 616/Del/2017, 617/Del/2017, 618/Del/2017, 619/Del/2017, 620/Del/2017, 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration of ₹ 1,96,533.00 as income on the basis of Long Term Capital Gain making an addition of ₹ 1,87,136.00 and accepted agricultural income of ₹ 15,000.00. The A.O. completed the assessment at ₹ 1,87,140.00, excluding the agricultural income of ₹ 15,000/- under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act vide assessment order dated 10th December, 2015. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the appellant-assessee, Shri Vikram Singh filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the C.I.T.(A) ), who vide his order dated 30th November, 2016 dismissed the appeal of the appellant-assessee with enhancement. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the C.I.T.(A) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act would stand vitiated for want of sanction under Section 151 of the Act and that the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the above aspect despite specific argument raised in the appeal. Admit. Since the respondent is represented. There is no need for any notice. List in the normal course for final hearing. 12. There is no dispute that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant-assessee with prior sanction of the Additional Commissioner of the Income Tax. 13. Heard Mr. Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee, and Mr. Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-department. 14. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
