NALIN KUMAR RASTOGI LEGAL HEIR HARI SHANKAR RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 52(2), NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMAAssessment Year: 2013-14
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated
08.09.2023 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-18/10628/2016-17 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 22.03.2016 passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income
2
Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward 52(2), Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
On hearing both the sides, we find that amongst other grounds on merits, the assessee has raised a ground No.2 that the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) is passed without application of mind and suffers from apparent irrationality and arbitrariness. Ld. DR has though defended the impugned order, we find on going through the impugned assessment order and the order of the ld.CIT(A), that the AO has rejected the valuation report of the property with regard to cost of acquisition and on his own proceeded to determine the capital gain on basis of valuation cost of acquisition taken from some facts on record. The whole case of the assessee cited by the ld. AR is that without calling for the report of the DVO, the assessee’s valuation report could not have been tinkered with. The ld. AR has tried to make out a case on all the grounds including that there was a fatal impact on lack of issuance of show-cause notice by the AO as per the binding instructions of the CBDT dated 29.12.2015. 3. However, what we find is that the ld.CIT(A), after recording the brief facts of the case and reproducing the content of the assessment order, observes in para 5 that the assessee was given several opportunities of being heard. However, no written submissions were filed and, accordingly, in paras 6.1 to 6.2, has concluded as follows and dismissed the appeal:- 3
“6.1 Further, the assessee has claimed cost for superior work for ground floor & first floor at Rs.1,90,000/- as on 01.04.1981 for each floor apart from the cost of construction. The cost of construction as on 01.04.1981 for each floor has been computed by the valuer at Rs.1,03,635/-. No evidence substantiating the higher cost of superior work has been filed by the assessee. It appears that the assessee has simply claimed this cost to enhance its cost of acquisition so that the indexed cost would be much higher and taxable amount of capital gain would be lesser.
2 At page 4 of the sale deeds dated 24/09/2012 & 26/09/2012 the history of the property in question has been mentioned with regard to ownership. The said property was owned Smt. Chandra Wati Wife of Late Sh. Jog Dhian on the basis of Partition deed dated 29/01/1948. Smt. Chandra Wati during her life time made her will dated 27/12/1979 registered on 30/01/1980 in the office of Sub-