← Back to search

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND

PDF
ITA 1005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 October 20256 pages

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 28.08.2025Pronounced: 15.10.2025

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”),
National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated
12.02.2025 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 05 days. The delay of 05 days is condoned on due consideration of facts of assessee’s case and owing to causing no perceptible prejudice to other side.

3.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not considering actual sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- received by the appellant by adopting value as per jantri rates of Rs. 29,65,802/- as deemed value of sale consideration u/s 50C of the Act without referring the valuation to the DVO to ascertain fair market value of the land under consideration without offering any cogent reasons for non-reference to DVO
Asst. Year –2012-13
- 2–

despite of repeated requested of your appellant for reference to DVO for arriving the fair market value of the land under consideration and thus depriving the appellant of the alternative remedial machinery available in the Act. Thus, making an addition of STCG of Rs. 24,53,638/- to the total income of the appellant is illegal, unwarranted and the addition is liable to be deleted.

2.

L’nd CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- as income from other sources as commission income without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and this addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- is liable to be deleted.

3.

Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the appeal is finalized.”

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Bhupendrabhai Bhikhalal Patel, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring income from agricultural activities, capital gains, and income from other sources. Based on information received from the Sub-

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND | BharatTax