JITENDRA AMRITA RAUNDAL,KALWAN, NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(5), NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 728/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 October 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after considering the remand report from the AO, as the AO had failed to provide the remand report previously. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an immovable property and reported a consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, alleging escaped assessment of long-term capital gain based on the government valuation of Rs.4,71,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition on account of long-term capital gain without properly considering the DVO's report and the issue of sale deed cancellation. Whether the matter needs to be remanded back for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Dandgaval
For Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati (virtually)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.02.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the basis of information available on record that the assessee has sold immovable property bearing survey No.65/1, admeasuring 2H 14R at Haveli, Dist. Pune for a consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- as against the government valuation at Rs.4,71,00,000/- for which provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are applicable and long term capital gain of Rs.1,94,65,174/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,94,65,174/- being the long term capital gain.

3.

Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee made various submissions. Based on the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on 10.01.2024. However, since no remand report from the Assessing Officer was received, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC passed the order on 23.02.2024 sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer by recording as under:

4.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:

1. On the facts and in law, the H'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order of AO regarding the addition on account of Long term capital Gain of Rs.1,94,65,174/-.

2. On the facts and in law, the H'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in not considering the valuation of the property as valued by their Department Valuation Officer [DVO] and compute capital gains accordingly?

3. On the facts and in law, the H'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in rejecting the report submitted by the DVO, when it was the H'ble CIT(A) himself who had referred the matter to the DVO.

4. On the facts and in law, the H'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the indexation of Cost for Long Term Capital Asset.

5. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter or amend any ground/ grounds of appeal.

5.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act, 1961. We find on the basis of various submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, no such report was given by the Assessing Officer. We find paras 7 and 7.1 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC read as under: “7. REMAND REPORT 7.1 During the course of appellate proceeding, remand report was called from the concerned AO on 10.01.2024 but was not received till date.”

6.

We find instead of waiting for the remand report or giving another reminder to the Assessing Officer for submission of the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC passed the order on 23.02.2024. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide the issue afresh and as per fact and law after considering the remand report from the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report. Needless to say the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th October, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →