VIJAY SHAMBHULAL JOBANPUTRA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -17(3), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
04.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the value adopted by the Ld. Departmental Valuation
Officer (DVO) without giving an opportunity of being heard by means of a p of the Tribuna
2. That on the Ld. NFAC has DVO by statin
NFAC, which 3. Without pre on April 01, approved val value as on A away from t adopted by appellant as o
4. Without pr
Valuer as on Valuation Off
Rs 33,83,000
which cannot the Valuation the same by adopted by th as on April 0
2. Briefly stated, t filed its return of i
28.07.2012 declaring was selected for scru and complying with t
1961 (hereinafter “t property situated at a long-term capital lo cost of acquisition, t registered valuer esti
₹2,50,00,000/- as o
Vija personal hearing and without following th al.
e facts and circumstances of the case and s erred in confirming the value adopted ng that the value of the DVO is binding is not in accordance with the law.
ejudice to above, value adopted by the a 1981 was based on the valuation rep luer whereas the departmental valuer a April 01, 1981 comparing the property wh the locality hence the incorrect compa the DVO, and hence the value adopt on April 01, 1981 may be directed to be a rejudice to above value adopted by the April 01, 1981 was Rs 2,50,00,000/- w ficer has valued the property as on April 0
0/- by adopting the sales instances of t be compared with the locality of the app n was done by physical method instead y land and building method, hence the he Registered valuer may be directed to 01, 1981. the facts of the case reveal th income for the year under co g a total income of ₹50,38,182
utiny and the Assessing Office the statutory notices under the the Act”), noted that the ass
Plot No. 36, Koregaon Park, Pu oss of ₹5,62,50,000. In suppor the assessee furnished a valua imating the fair market value of on the relevant date. The As ay Shambhulal Jobanputra
2
he direction d in law the by the Ld.
g on the Ld.
appellant as port of the adopted the hich are far arison was ted by the adopted.
Registered where as the 01, 1981 at the locality pellant and d of valuing e valuation be adopted hat the assessee onsideration on 2/-. The return er, after issuing
Income-tax Act, essee had sold une and claimed rt of the claimed ation report of a f the property at sessing Officer, however, rejected th statutory powers, re
Officer (DVO) for det of limitation for com
DVO’s report had completed the assess by the DVO.
2.1 During the ap received, and the le determined be adopte
2.2 Aggrieved, the a contending that the instances in reasona that there existed agreement value and 2.3 In the first roun that the learned C objections and restor pass a speaking
Tribunal(supra) reads
“13. We have this issue. We valuation wa
(Appeals). Th noted and rep
Vija he said valuation report and eferred the matter to the Dis termination of fair market value mpleting the assessment was ex not been received, the As sment subject to the valuation ppellate proceedings, the DVO earned CIT(A) directed that th ed.
assessee carried the matter befo
DVO had failed to consider c able proximity to the assessee a substantial disparity betw the prevailing ready reckoner ra nd of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated red the matter to the CIT(A) wit order.
The relevant observ s as under:
e heard both the counsel and perused th e note that assessee's challenge to the m as there before the Id. Commissioner of is the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A produced in his order. However, we note ay Shambhulal Jobanputra
3
d, invoking his strict Valuation e. As the period xpiring and the ssessing Officer to be furnished
O’s report was he valuation so ore the Tribunal, comparable sale
’s property and ween the sale ates.
Tribunal found the assessee’s th a mandate to vation of the he records on merits of DVO f Income Tax
“Thus, it ca considered a Appellant in a contravention regard, it is discretion, w property as d
3. Aggrieved, the a learned counsel subm the matter pertains t
Vija r of Income Tax (Appeals) has summaril the same by observing that the DVO ha bjection in his report. The Id. Commission
) has failed to refer/reproduce the releva er leave alone his comment and adjudicat the DVO has also not been placed before able apex court in the case of M/s S
CIT & Anr. 300 ITR 403 (SC) has hel e orders have to be consistent with e.
gly, in the background of aforesaid dis e direct the Id. Commissioner of Income T eaking order on the assessee's challenge tion done by the DVO. Needless to ad anted adequate opportunity of being hea to, the learned CIT(A) issued no ing. However, from the impug portunity of personal or virtu ssee. The learned CIT(A) merely ered and disposed of the asses neither the Assessing Officer nor re with the valuation made by er:
n be observed from the above that th and disposed of all the objections rai a speaking manner. There does not see n of principles of natural justice in this c further stated that the AO or the CI whatsoever, in interfering with the valu etermined by the DVO.”
assessee is once again in appea mitted that the assessee is a se to A.Y. 2012-13, involving protr ay Shambhulal Jobanputra
4
ly dismissed as dealt with ner of Income ant portion of tion there on.
e us. We find
Sahara India ld that even the rules of scussion and Tax (Appeals) to the merits dd assessee ard.”
otices and listed gned order it is ual hearing was y observed that ssee’s objections r the CIT(A) had y the DVO. His he DVO has ised by the em to be any case. In this IT(A) has no uation of the al before us. The enior citizen and racted litigation.

It was urged that the approved valuer’s rep to adjudicate the ob within a stipulated ti
4. We have caref perused the materia
Assessing Officer refe of fair market value grievance is that the reasonable geographi before both the DVO
4.1 In our conside appellate authority, i adjudicate each of speaking order. He is relevant and proxim record so warrant. Th any opportunity of principles of natural j direction specifically
4.2 The reasoning a discretion to examin legally unsustainable
Vija e Tribunal may either direct ac port or, alternatively, direct the bjections by a reasoned and me.
fully considered the rival su al placed on record. It is undis ferred the matter to the DVO fo e as on 01.04.1981. The asse e DVO failed to consider comp ical proximity, a contention con and the learned CIT(A).
red view, the learned CIT(A), is under a statutory obligation the assessee’s objections in a s fully empowered to direct the D mate sale instances, should t he failure to do so, coupled with hearing, constitutes a clear in justice, particularly when the T mandated a speaking order.
adopted by the learned CIT(A) —
ne or interfere with the DVO’s e. The appellate authority cann ay Shambhulal Jobanputra
5
cceptance of the e learned CIT(A) speaking order ubmissions and sputed that the or determination essee’s principal parable sales in nsistently raised being the first to examine and a reasoned and DVO to consider he material on h the absence of nfraction of the Tribunal’s earlier
— that he has no valuation — is not abdicate its juri iction, nor can endorsement of the of mind.
4.3 In light of the compliance with the as well as the settled to set aside the order the matter to his file passing a detailed an the assessee, after aff
4.4 In the interest o be passed at the ear from the date of rece
Principal Commissio by the assessee are a 5. In the result, statistical purposes.

Order pronoun (SANDEEP G
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 17/11/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Vija it dispose of substantive objec
DVO’s report without independ e above discussion, and in o
Tribunal’s earlier directions da d law on natural justice, we deem r of the learned CIT(A) on this is . The learned CIT(A) shall adjud nd speaking order on each obje ffording due opportunity of being of expeditious justice, we direct rliest, preferably within a period eipt of this order by the learne ner of Income-tax (PCIT). The accordingly allowed for statistica the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 17/
-
S
GOSAIN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ay Shambhulal Jobanputra
6
ctions by a mere dent application order to secure ated 17.05.2018
m it appropriate ssue and restore dicate afresh, by ection raised by g heard.
that such order d of six months ed juri ictional grounds raised al purposes.
is allowed for 11/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Vija ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu ay Shambhulal Jobanputra
7
R, gistrar) umbai