MR VIVEK OMPRAKASH ABROL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2015-16
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal is directed against order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds:
On the Commi in reje conside Appella ground unwar 2. The lea exceed report anoma manda 3. The Le (NFAC) the de Assess 13th J additio the DV 4. On the Commi disrega coterm same i before that we 5. That th (NFAC) withou and th (A) for contrav to quas 6. On the the Le (NFAC) submis Section of the the ad said D Mr. V ITA e facts and circumstances of the case, th issioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-(NFAC) ecting the Valuation Report of the DVO ering the detailed submissions made ant. Hence, the rejection of the DVO Rep ds of alleged anomalies in the report is u rranted and uncalled for. arned Commissioner of Income Tax (App ded his juri iction in rejecting the DVO's dated 13th June, 2018 on the grounds alies noticed and rejected the same as atory to adopt the same. earned Commissioner of Income Tax ) has not appreciated the submissions eletions of the additions made by the sing Officer in view of DVO's valuation rep June 2018 2019 for the one propert ons were made subject to the valuation VO. e facts and circumstances of the case, th issioner of Income (Appeals)-(NFAC) has arding the Valuation Report of the DVO, minous to the assessment order, to the e is not challenged by the appellant in th him and thereby erred in adjudicating t ere not subject matter of appeal before hi he learned Commissioner of Income Tax ) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuat ut providing opportunities to the Departm e Appellant to rebut the grounds of the le r rejection and hence the CIT (A) or vention of Principles of Natural Justice an shed. e facts and circumstances of the case an earned Commissioner of Income Tax ) has erred in not appreciating the A ssion that the rectification of the assessm n 155(15) required to be carried out by giv DVO's valuation report dated 13th June dditions were made subject to the adopt VO's valuation of the said four properties Vivek Omprakash Abrol 2 A No. 5883/MUM/2024 e Learned has erred O without e by the port on the unjustified, peals) has valuation of certain not being (Appeals)- made for e Learned port dated ty as the n report of e Learned s erred in , which is extent the he appeal the issues im. (Appeals) tion report ment's DVO earned CIT rder is in nd is liable nd in law, (Appeals)- Appellant's ment under ving effect e 2018 as tion of the .
The Le erred i Learne dated Assess 23d D Section Assess CIT Ap violatio 8. Alterna (Appea limitati situate Malvan registe Decem propert at Rs. value o 9. The Ap and/or ground 10. All afo alterna 2. Briefly stated, f return of income Rs.1,53,28,600/-. Th selected for scrutiny Income-tax Act, 196 with. During the scr that in the financial consideration, the as against purchase con Mr. V ITA earned Commissioner of Income Tax (App in not calling for the rectification order ed Assessing Officer in view of the DV 13th June 2018 has been passed sment Order passed under Section 143 December 2017 was subject to rectificat n 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5. sment Order) and hence, the order pass ppeal is against the provisions of law on of the principles of natural justice; atively, the Learned Commissioner of In als NFAC) erred in not considering th ions, deficiencies in the valuation of the e at CTS No.346 and 347, situate a ni, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburba ered with the Sub-