SRI ASIS KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee an individual against the order of Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 30.08.2021 for AY 2013-14.

At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Soumitra Choudhury submitted that the whole controversy revolves around the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) computed by the AO in respect of the property sold by the assessee which according to him (assessee) was inherited property from his late parents. According to the Ld. AR, when the AO raised this issue after reopening the assessment, the assessee had filed the valuation report from the Chartered Valuer (empanelled valuer of the Calcutta High Court) to justify his claim. According to the Ld. AR, even though the assessee had tried to justify the sale consideration which he got to the tune of Rs.13,65,875/- the AO erred in making the impugned addition of Rs.13,65,875/-. According to the Ld. AR when the assessee has brought on record the valuation of the Chartered Valuer, and if the AO did not agree for some reasons this valuation, then he ought to have called for DVO report as held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in 372 ITR 83. According to the Ld. AR, since the bone of contention is regarding the valuation of the property in question, the Ld. AR prays that the matter may be decided in favour of Sri Asis Kumar Bhattacharyya, AY: 2013-14 assessee or in the alternative be remanded back to the AO to call for DVO report and thereafter to make de novo assessment in this case.

Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR Smt. Archana Gupta opposes the plea of the assessee and drew our attention to the last para of page 4 of the AO’s order wherein certain observations/actions have been carried out by the AO not to agree with the valuation submitted by assessee. According to the Ld. DR, the assessee having sold the property had not preferred to file the return of income for reasons best known to him. Therefore, the AO had to reopen the assessment and thereafter having conducted enquiry has made the addition in accordance to law. According to Ld. DR, this action of the AO has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) so she does not want me to interfere with the impugned order.

Having heard rival submissions and after having carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not repeating the facts as stated hereinabove for the sake of brevity. Having taken note of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal (supra), I am of the opinion that since the assessee had filed the chartered valuer’s report in respect of the valuation of the property in question; and if the AO does not agree with the valuation, then he ought to have called for the DVO report; and after the DVO have estimated the value of the property as per law after affording opportunity to the assessee, thereafter, the AO ought to have computed the LTCG, in accordance to law. Since the AO has failed to do so, I set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand this issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to call for DVO report in respect of the property sold by the assessee and thereafter the AO to determine the LTCG in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

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