HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld.
CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 30.12.2022 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. First we shall deal with Assessee’s Appeal in ITA No. 124/Ahd/2023 (A.Y.
2013-14)
The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)” for short] grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.1,48,61,085/-, being long term capital gain, by rejecting valuation report of a registered value and substituting valuation without referring valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DV).
ITA Nos. 124&125/Ahd/2023
Asst. Year –2013-14
- 2–
The ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3,05,400/-, being short term capital gain on sale of NA land situated at Block No. 1165, Village: Chhatral (in which Appellant held 1/3 share) by taking gross cost of purchase at Rs. 21,46,300/- instead of correct cost of purchase of Rs.23,08,800/- and rejecting gross cost of improvement and gross cost of transfer aggregating to Rs. 7,75,000/-.
The ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without service of notice u/s. 14392) of the Act hence assessment framed u/s. 14393) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law.
Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, change any of the grounds as and when the occasion may arise.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of the assessee, Shri Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, for A.Y. 2013-14 was reopened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), on the basis of information in the Annual Information Report (AIR) that the assessee, along with two co-owners, had sold a non-agricultural land for a total consideration of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- during the Financial Year 2012-13. Since the assessee had not filed a return of income for the relevant year, the Assessing Officer reopened the case and completed the assessment determining Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) after making certain disallowances.
1 The dispute was with respect to the fair market value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.1981. The assessee had adopted the value of Rs. 72,84,500/- based on a registered valuer’s report and claimed an indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 6,20,63,940/-. However, the Assessing Officer, being dissatisfied with the valuer’s report, obtained sale instances of similar nearby lands from the Sub-