VIRENDRAKUMAR RATILAL BHAKTA,BARDOLI vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 542/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 April 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if capital gains are accepted in the case of one co-owner, the revenue cannot dispute the same for another co-owner on identical issues. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justifiable.

What were the facts?

The assessee is a co-owner of a property and the revenue reopened the assessment to make an addition for alleged long-term capital gains. The assessee's co-owner's case with identical issues was accepted by the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the re-opening of assessment was valid and if the addition for capital gains was justified when a co-owner's assessment was accepted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 55A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “DB” BENCH, SURAT

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 07.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT “DB” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.542/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Virendrakumar Ratilal Bhakta, Vs. Income Tax Officer Bunglow No. 12, Avadh Lake City, (International Taxation), Baben Road, Baben, Bardoli-394601 Surat [PAN No.BHTPB6897B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR 22.01.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 07.04.2026 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad-13 on 21.03.2024 for A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in in re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 79,53,811/- on account of alleged income from undisclosed Long term capital gain. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition by adopting valuation provided by DVO without considering the fact of the land, area of the land, value of the land and valuation provided by Government Approved Valuer. Taking less value of agriculture and u/s.55A of the Act on the basis of valuation given by the DVO.

ITA No. 542/Srt/2024 Virendrakumar Ratilal Bhakta vs. ITO Asst. Year –2016-17 - 2– 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer and DVO in not considering the objection filed and taken valuation of Rs.3.55 per sq. mtr. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not considering the surrounding area land rate as on 01.04.1981 which is already given by DVO time to time from Rs.190 per sq. mtr. to 278 per sq. mtr. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer/DVO in not considering the objection submitted and given valuation of Rs.3.55 per sq. mtr. without applying of mind. 7. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 8. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee is a co-owner of the property wherein the capital gains have been treated differently from the other co-owner. The order of the Devendra Ratilal Bhakta has been passed by the Revenue Authorities on 23.05.2023 accepting the return income.

4.

This is the case where the assessment of one co-owner has been accepted, the Revenue cannot dispute in another co-owners case for the identical issue. Not going much into the merits which are prima facie acceptable and in favour of the assessee based on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kumararani Smt. Meenakshi Achi, reported in 158 taxman 4 (Madras) and by the Tribunal in the case of Rajeshkumar Shantilal Patel vs. ITO 127 taxmann.com 342 (Surat-Trib.) and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Mahesh Chunilal Shah in ITA No. 210/Ahd/2011 order dated 27.08.2014, wherein it was held that once

ITA No. 542/Srt/2024 Virendrakumar Ratilal Bhakta vs. ITO Asst. Year –2016-17 - 3–

the capital gains accepted in the case of co-owner, the Revenue cannot modify the capital gains in the other co-owner. The same is not justifiable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 07/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat

1.

Date of dictation 06.04.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 06.04.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 07.04.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 07.04.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 07.04.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 07.04.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →