NAMIT DAYAL,GUJARAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7113/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the valuation report filed by the assessee as additional evidence before the CIT(A) should be admitted. The matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of the cost of acquisition in light of the valuation report.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 62,65,000 and declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 26,160 after claiming deductions. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the cost of acquisition due to lack of substantiation and determined a higher capital gain. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, rejecting the valuation report filed as additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the valuation report filed as additional evidence before the CIT(A) should be admitted and whether the AO properly substantiated the disallowance of the cost of acquisition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 54F,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 03.10.2025 for AY 2018-19.

2.

The facts of case in brief as emanating from records are: Information was received in the assessee’s case on the Insight Portal with respect to sale of immovable property amounting to Rs.62,65,000/-, notice u/s 148 of the Income

ITA 7113/DEL/2025 NAMIT DAYAL Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 30.03.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,00,010/- on 29.04.2022. In respect of sale of immovable property, the assessee, after reducing indexed cost of acquisition from the total sale consideration and claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Act, determined Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.26,160/-. The same is computed as under:-:-

Full Value of consideration received Rs.62,65,000 Less: Cost of Acquisition with indexation Rs.51,28,329 Less: Deduction u/s. 54F Rs.11,10,511 Long Term Capital Gains Rs.26,160 3. The Assessing Officer (AO), in absence of any document to substantiate cost of acquisition, determined the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.51,54,489/-. Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order dated 31.03.2023 passed u/s 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During First Appellate proceedings, the assessee filed valuation report as additional evidence to substantiate the cost of acquisition of immovable property. The CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee and sustained the addition. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee

4.

Shri Parimalsinh Parmar, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had requested for referring the matter to the DVO, however, the assessee’s request for such reference was not acceded to by the Assessing Officer. The AO rejected cost of acquisition of the immovable property and determined the cost of acquisition as NIL, which cannot be sustained. The ld. Counsel prayed for accepting the additional evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate the cost of acquisition.

5.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department strongly defending the impugned order prayed for confirming the addition made by the AO on account of Long Term Capital Gain and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

ITA 7113/DEL/2025 NAMIT DAYAL 6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to substantiate the cost of acquisition of immovable property. The assessee obtained valuation report from the Approved Valuer after completion of assessment. Thus, the said valuation report was placed for the first time before the CIT(A) as additional evidence. Considering entire facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form of valuation report deserves to be admitted. The matter is restored to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue in light of the valuation report furnished by the assessee. The AO shall reframe the assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 26th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH VIKAS AWASTHY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 13-05-2026 NV

ITA 7113/DEL/2025 NAMIT DAYAL Copy to:

NAMIT DAYAL, 1/177, GUJARAT REFINERY TOWNSHIP, 1 PO JAWAHARNAGAR, VADODARA, VADODARA-391320, GUJARAT ITO, WARD-1, ITO, SECTOR 6, OLD HOUSING BOARD 2 COLONY, PANIPAT, PANIPAT-132103, HARYANA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →