AMITY LAND DEVELOPERS,BHARUCH GUJARAT vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE NFAS, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1286/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 October 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order and made the impugned addition without considering the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The assessee's counsel drew the Tribunal's attention to the DVO's report dated 27.10.2022. The assessee's counsel prayed for the matter to be remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment after considering the DVO report and the assessee's objections. The Revenue's representative agreed to this course of action. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. It was clarified that the AO shall provide the assessee with a full opportunity to present its submissions and consider all objections without being influenced by the previous order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amity Land Developers, filed its return for Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147, suspecting undervaluation of property sales. The assessee sold two properties for Rs. 1,62,000 and Rs. 54,000, respectively, which were significantly lower than the stamp duty valuations of Rs. 22,04,081 and Rs. 7,34,694. The AO made an addition of Rs. 27,22,775 based on Section 50C. The assessee's appeal to the NFAC was unsuccessful. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT noted that the AO had made a protective assessment without considering the Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report, which was requested by the assessee, as the assessment deadline was approaching.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the authorities below erred in applying Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without considering the valuation adopted by the DVO, and whether the addition made deserves to be deleted? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 50C). 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in concluding that the appellant had capital gains of Rs. 27,22,775 without any material on record? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's Contentions: - The lower authorities erred in applying Section 50C without considering the DVO's valuation and that the addition should be deleted. - The AO arrived at the conclusion of capital gains without any supporting material. - The assessee prayed for the matter to be remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment after considering the DVO report and the assessee's objections. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue's representative agreed to the remand of the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 139,Section 50C,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 30.10.2026

आदेश / O R D E R Per, B. M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by the order of first appeal dated 23.09.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal.

Page 1 of 4

Amity Land Developers ITA No. 1286/SRT/2025 – AY 2013-14 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-firm filed its return of AY 2013-14 u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil which was assessed. Subsequently, the Ld. AO, acting upon an information in his possession revealing that the assessee sold immovable properties during the relevant year and the actual sale consideration declared was lesser than the stamps authority valuation in terms of section 50C of the Act, re-opened assessee’s case u/s 147. During proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee sold two properties, namely (i) Registration No. 259 – for Rs. 1,62,000/- whereas the stamps authority valuation was Rs. 22,04,081/-; thus the lesser consideration was Rs. 20,42,081/- and (ii) Registration No. 244 – for Rs 54,000/- whereas the stamps authority valuation was Rs. 7,34,694/-; thus the lesser consideration was Rs. 6,80,694/-. The Ld. AO invoked section 50C and accordingly assessed additional income of Rs. 27,22,775/- [Rs. 20,42,081 + Rs. 6,80,694/-] and determined total income at Rs. 27,22,775/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter before Ld. CIT(A) but did not get success. Now, the assessee has come before us in present appeal.

3.

The grounds raised by assessee are as under:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the authorities below, have committed the serious error of law in applying provisions of Section 50C of the Act in respect of immovable properties and not considering the valuation adopted by DVO and made an addition which deserves to be deleted in the best interest of justice.

Page 2 of 4

Amity Land Developers ITA No. 1286/SRT/2025 – AY 2013-14 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has misdirected himself in arriving to conclusion that the appellant is having capital gain of Rs. 27,22,775/-without having any material on record. 3. The appellant craves for leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 4. We have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the material held on record to which our attention has been drawn.

5.

We re-produce below the Para No. 7.2.2 of impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A):

However, a review of the assessment records indicates that statutory notices under Sections 148, 142(1), and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act were duly issued and served upon the appellant. The appellant responded to these notices, and the replies were duly considered during the course of proceedings. In fact, the AO made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) upon the appellant's own request. As the statutory time limit for completing the assessment was expiring on 31.03.2022 and the DVO report had not been received, the AO passed a protective assessment to safeguard the interests of the revenue.

6.

Thus, it is clear that the Ld. AO has passed assessment-order and made impugned addition without considering report of DVO. The Ld. AR has drawn us to Pages 54 to 62 of Paper-Book where the DVO report dated 27.10.2022 is placed. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for a fresh assessment after considering DVO report and assessee’s objections/submissions. Ld. DR for revenue agreed. Faced with this situation, we remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for assessment afresh. It is made clear that the Ld. AO shall give full

Page 3 of 4

Amity Land Developers ITA No. 1286/SRT/2025 – AY 2013-14 opportunity to assessee and consider assessee’s all submissions without being influenced by his previous order in any manner.

7.

In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 30/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- [ SUCHITRA KAMBLE ] [ B. M. BIYANI ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER //True Copy// Place: Surat िदनांक /Dated : 30/10/2026 Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT Digitally signed by (4) CIT(A) HEMA KISHORE HEMA KISHORE JAKKA (5) Departmental Representative JAKKA Date: 2026.10.30 (6) Guard File 16:51:15 +05'30' By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →