ANJU MEEL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 741/JP/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09
Anju Meel
HE-183, Anjani Marg, Hanuman
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPM7877C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. G. M. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Chaudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing
: 07/10/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/11/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
By way of present appeal the assessee – appellant challenges the finding so recorded in the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 07/03/2025. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2008-09. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 23.03.2016
2
Anju Meel vs. ITO passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward -04, Jaipur.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
“1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the reassessment proceedings as legally valid which were initiated by non-juri ictional Assessing
Officer, who, after recording reasons, obtained sanction u/s. 151 from non- juri ictional CIT 1 and issued notices under sections 148,143(2) and 142(1) of I.T.
Act and on realizing juri ictional error, transferred the records to juri ictional AO who completed reassessment solely on basis of such wrong initiation of reassessment proceedings under sec. 147 of Act.
Without prejudice to ground No. (1) above, ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of payments on account of (1) Rs.17,450/- paid extra for enhanced DLC value of registration charges, (2) capital expenses of Rs.15,71,149 (4,06,963/-+Rs.11,64,186/-) incurred for vacating sold land from unauthorized occupants for which sworn and uncontroverted as affidavit was submitted which is allowable deduction of short term capital gains.
Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.2015 after recording reasons with the prior approval of the competent Authority. The notice u/s. 148 dated 23.03.2015 was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Jaipur. [ paper book page 5 ]. The statutory notices u/s. 142(1)/143(2) were also issued by him [ page 6 & 7 ]. The said ITO ward 6(3), Jaipur on being aware about the error for the juri iction in the case of the assessee he has transferred the case to ITO, Ward 3(4), Jaipur being the juri ictional assessing officer. Thus, the facts are that the order that has been passed by the ITO, Ward 3(4) has not recorded any reasons and has passed the 3 Be that it may record reveals that the ITO ward 3(4) on receipt of the transfer the case has completed the case of the assessee making addition of Rs. 30,91,950/- revising income under the head capital gain in the hands of the assessee by an order dated 23.03.2016. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: 6. Ground No.1:- In this ground the appellant has challenged the Juri iction of the AO to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act.
1 The submission uploaded by the appellant is reproduced in para 5 above.
2 I have perused the assessment order, grounds of appeal, and submission filed by the appellant carefully. I find from the assessment order the objection raised by the appellant against reopening of assessment and issue of notice u/s 148 was disposed by the AO by passing speaking order on 25/02/2016 and the same was served on the appellant on 29/02/2016. Thereafter, the appellant had responded the hearing notices issued by the AO and had participated in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appellant cannot raise the objection against the juri iction of the AO to issue reopen u/s 147 or to issue notice u/s 148 after completion of the assessment in view of the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. In view of the above, objection raised by the appellant is dismissed.
Ground No.2:- In this ground the appellant has contested the action of the AO of ignoring the valuation report submitted from the registered valuer.
4
I have considered the facts of the case and submission filed by the appellant carefully. I find that as per the provisions section 142A(1) the AO may make reference to valuation officer to estimate the value including fair market value. As per the provisions of section 142A(6), the DVO is bound to submit the report within 6 months from the end of month in which the reference was received. As per provisions of section 142A(7), the AO on receipt of the valuation report may take into account the same after giving opportunity of being heard to the appellant. As per the prevailing Explanation 1(iv) under the first proviso to section 153 of the Act, while computing the limitation period, the period commencing from the date on which the AO makes a reference to the valuation officer u/s 142A(1) and ending with the date on which the valuation report is received by the AO is to be excluded. Thus, I find that the action of the AO proceedings for completion of assessment without waiting for valuation report and ignoring the request made by the appellant was contrary to the provisions section 142A(7) rws section 153
(First provision Explanation 1(iv) of the prevailing provisions). In view of the above, the contention raised by the appellant is found to be acceptable and thus the action of the adopting the sale consideration as per market value is not correct. Therefore, the addition made by the AO to this extent is deleted. The AO is directed to re-compute the capital gain accordingly. Thus, the ground raised by the appellant is allowed.
5
8. Ground No.3:- In this ground the appellant has contested the action of the AO of disallowing the registration expenses and expenses incurred for vacating the land and levelling the land.
1 The submission uploaded by the appellant is reproduced in para 5 above.
2 I have perused the assessment order, grounds of appeal, and submission filed by the appellant carefully. I find from the assessment that the AO had allowed the registration expenses to the extent the supporting evidences produced by the appellant. The AO had disallowed the land vacating expenses in absence proper evidences.
During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that the work of levelling the lands sold and vacating the land from the unauthorised occupants was got done through one Mr. Jaideo Godara whose affidavit was obtained for completion of the work. The appellant by relying the decision of Hon'ble ITAT,
Mumbai submitted that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of expenses incurred for removal of encroachments.
I have considered the facts of the case and submission filed by the appellant. I find that the appellant has not produced any direct evidence in support of the expenses incurred for levelling the land and getting vacated the lands from unauthorized occupancy either during assessment proceedings or during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the genuineness of the expenses incurred is not verifiable. Similarly, the appellant has not submitted the evidences in support of the registration expenses incurred. Therefore, the AO had allowed the expenses to the extent evidences were furnished. In view of the above, the disallowance of expenses made by the AO on account of registration charges and land vacating charges is confirmed. I find that the facts of the case law relied upon by the appellant are not identical to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the said case law is not applicable to the appellant. In view of the above discussion, the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Feeling dissatisfied with the findings so recorded in the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred the present appeal on the various grounds
6
Anju Meel vs. ITO as reiterated herein above. In support of the ground raised the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the following written submission;
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE: After recording reasons and after obtaining necessary satisfaction from Jt. CIT, Range-6, Jaipur, notice dated 23,03,2015 under section 148 of Income tax Act was issued by non-juri ictional Assessing Officer, {I.T.O.
Wd. 6(3) Jaipur} who also issued statutory notices u/s.. 143(2)/142(1) of Act on 02.06.2015 for the reason, the assessee had sold two agricultural lands (capital assets) giving rise to short term capital gains under the provisions of sec. 50C of Act. Thereafter the reassessment records were transferred to juri ictional AO
{I.T.O. Ward 3(4), Jaipur} who, after issuing notice under sec. 142(1) of Act on 18.01.2016 reassessed the income of assessee, reopened by non-juri iction
AO. The addition made under section 50C of Act by AO for both the Agricultural lands were deleted by ld. CIT(A) by accepting fair market value of both the properties, valued by Registered Valuer. Since the sale price of both the agricultural lands were lower than evaluated value as per valuation of Sub-