BALAKRAM GUPTA ,JHANSI, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI, UTTAR PRADESH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 489/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Balakram Gupta, 526, Shivaji Vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2(3)(1), Nagar, Jhansi-284003 Jhansi-284003 PAN : AKYPG2673F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Maynak Jain, Adv. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)

Date of hearing 18.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2018-19/10160489 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax, (Aurangabad) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2019-20, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case state that, appellant assessee filed his return of income, for A.Y. 2019-20, on 31.08.2019. During the F.Y. 2018- 19, assessee sold two plots of land situated in Kanpur, both for the consideration of Rs. 40,59,800/-. However, the circle rate was Rs.

ITA No.489/Agr/2025 95,14,000/-, while filing the return assessee has taken the fair market value of Rs. 52,27,472/- as against the sale consideration of Rs. 40,59,800/-, on the basis of valuation report obtained by the assessee and computed the capital gain accordingly. However, CPC, while passing intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 02.12.2020, considered the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 95,14,000/- as sale consideration of the plot and added Rs. 42,86,528/- in the income of the assessee as long term capital gain. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal. 4. Assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. That the ld. Authorities below erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in further dismissing the grounds raised by the appellant. 2. That the ld. Authorities below erred in law and on facts of the case by not referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), as requested by the Appellant and as contemplated u/s 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Id. Authorities below failed to provide any reasoning for not referring the appellant's case to the DVO as required under Section 50C(2) of the Act, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Ld. Addl./JCIT (A), without due consideration of the appellant's submissions, summarily held that I find no reasons to refer the case of the appellant to the DVO as the CPC has rightly adopted the circle value as the sale consideration. 4. That the finding of the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) are erroneous both in law and on facts, as it disregards the procedural safeguard envisaged under Section 50C(2), which requires a reasoned and judicious exercise of discretion by the Assessing Authority before declining to refer the valuation of the capital asset to the DVO. 5. The appellant assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal with the previous approval of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. Any Other ground of appeal, which may be taken at the time of hearing with the previous approval of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.”

2 | P a g e

ITA No.489/Agr/2025 5. Perused the records and heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. Ld AR submitted that ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by ld assessing officer without referring the matter to DVO, and prays to allow assessee’s appeal. 7. Ld DR supported the impugned order. 8. The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the computation of long term capital gain of Rs. 42,86,528/-, ignoring assessee’s request for determination of fair market value by not making a reference for valuation to DVO? 9. It is noticed that while filing the return, assessee has shown the fair market value of Rs. 52,27,472/- obtained from his valuer and as shown in the return as against the sale consideration of Rs. 40,59,800/-. Revenue authorities have ignored assessee’s valuer’s report and computed the capital gain at Rs. 42,86,528/-(95,14,000-52,27,472). Ld CIT(A) has observed that the FMV disclosed by the assessee was only based on self relied valuation report and hence not considered. In such a situation the right course open for the revenue authorities, was to make a reference to the DVO for determination of fair market value for the computation of the capital gain. In such circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld assessing officer with a direction that the ld assessing officer shall refer the matter to the DVO for the 3 | P a g e

ITA No.489/Agr/2025 determination of fair market value and after receiving valuation report from DVO, the assessing officer shall pass order a fresh in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say that ld assessing officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid point is accordingly determined in positive in favour of the appellant assessee and against the respondent revenue. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on – 18.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21.05.2026

Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

4 | P a g e