SARLABEN M. RAJ,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), BHARUCH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH "SMC", SURAT Before: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 567/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Sarlaben M. Raj, Vs ITO, 8, Rangshurti Society, Ward – 1(4), Tavra, Zadeshwar, Bharuch- Bharuch 392001, Gujarat PAN: AUCPR0888D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Mukund Rao, AR Revenue Represented : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.06.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM: 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In short, ‘the ld. CIT(A)’], dated 19.03.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 29,00,000/- as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition as declared by the Appellant despite the fact that the appellant had submitted all the

I.T.A No.567/SRT/2025/AY.2011-12 2 Sarlaben M. Raj vs. ITO documents before the Learned A O. The Learned AO had passed order dismissing the appellant claimed only for the reason that the valuation report from the DVO was not received. 2. The Appellant prays that the addition made of Rs. 9,00,000/- being long-term capital gain on sale of residential property be deleted. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing."

I.T.A No.567/SRT/2025/AY.2011-12 3 Sarlaben M. Raj vs. ITO and others, 118 ITR 461 (SC), (ii) Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vs. Shankar [1984 (Supp.) SCC 63] and (iii) New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 422 dismissed the appeal due to non- compliance on the part of the appellant. 4. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the assessee preferred present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The Ld. Counsel claimed that reference made to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act is flawed because the AO has not disputed the valuation given by the registered valuer nor intimated that the reference has been made to the DVO. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on cases of (i) Prembhai Kanjibhai Tandel vs. ITO, (2016) TaxCorp (A.T.) 51130 (ITAT – Ahd.) and (ii) CIT vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl., (2014) 8 Tax Corp (DT) 56597 (Guj.) and submitted that in both the cases Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in case of Hiraben Jayantilal Shah, 310 ITR 31 (Guj.) where the Hon’ble High Court has ruled in the favour of the appellant that reference to DVO is flawed. Since the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without granting sufficient

I.T.A No.567/SRT/2025/AY.2011-12 4 Sarlaben M. Raj vs. ITO opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld. Counsel requested that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to explain its case on merit before the JAO. 5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material availed on record. It is an undisputed fact that AO made addition of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of LTCG. Despite several opportunities given by the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to submit any details or documentary evidence to substantiate its case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the assessment order was confirmed by ld. CIT(A) ex parte, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to contest her case on merit. In the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of JAO with a direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant and to furnish all details and explanation as required by

I.T.A No.567/SRT/2025/AY.2011-12 5 Sarlaben M. Raj vs. ITO JAO and not to seek unnecessary adjournments without valid reasons. 7. In the result, the appeal of the is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 on 16/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Dated 16/06/2026 *Ranjan आदेश�ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/ Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेशसे,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����, सूरत