SMT. TANDRA GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-47(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to object to the Valuation Officer's report. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the addition of Rs. 6,24,214 on account of Long Term Capital Gains, based on a property valuation. The assessee argued that the Valuation Officer did not provide the valuation report or supporting materials, violating principles of natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order was framed in violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-disclosure of the Valuation Officer's report to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” (Virtual Court Hearing), BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Tandra Ghosh.……………………..………………….……Appellant 12, Aprakash Mukherjee Lane, Shibpur, Howrah-711102. [PAN: AMKPG1615K] vs. ITO, Ward-47(1), Kolkata………………………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Prabir Sen, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : October 26, 2021 Date of pronouncing the order : October 26, 2021 Hearing through Video Conferencing ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.03.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT’) passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.6,24,214 on account of Long Term Capital Gains, being illegal as it was based on a biased valuation made by the Department, should be deleted in full and fair market valuation may be ordered from the point of view of equity and natural justice.
2. The appellant craves leave to adduce any further ground(s) or amend the grounds taken, at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the sole dispute involved in this appeal is regarding the valuation of property sold by the assessee upon which the long-term capital gains have been assessed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel has submitted that the matter was referred by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Officer for estimating Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Tandra Ghosh
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026