Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed ROI for AY 2016-17 declaring total income including interest and rental income, but no LTCG. The case was reopened based on a valuation report suggesting the cost of acquisition was claimed on the higher side. An assessment order was passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 1,03,76,967/- on account of LTCG.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the DVO report without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the case. The Tribunal found that the case was not properly adjudicated before the lower authority. Therefore, one more opportunity was given to the assessee to present his case before the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment and subsequent additions were made in accordance with law, and whether the cost of acquisition was correctly determined.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 148A, 148, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI DIESH MOHAN SINHA & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, AR Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Ld. Sr. DR : 31/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 28/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, is directed against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) dated 29.06.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order dated 25.05.2023 passed by Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer under section (u/s.) 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
~ 1 ~
Grounds of appeal
raised by the Assessee are as follows:
1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to upheld AO's reopening of assessment U/s. 148A ignoring the law that proceedings U/s. 148A are not in accordance with the provisions of the law. He further ignored the fact that Intimation for notice U/s. 148 dated 30/07/2022 is barred by limitation. Additionally, he also erred in not considering the fact that difference in estimation of cost of acquisition as on 1/04/1981 does not amounts to escapement of income.
2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to direct the AO to work out LTCG by taking cost of acquisition as on 1/4/1981 at Rs. 160/- per Sq. Mt. based on DVO Report as against appellant's claim for cost of acquisition at RS. 225/- per Sq. Mt. supported by RVO Report for immovable property bearing R.S. No. Old- 468, R.S. No. New 306, Plot No.17, TP Scheme No.6 Vesu, Surat.
3. Facts of the case: Appellant is an individual has filled her ROI for AY 2016-17 at total income at Rs. 1,90,370/- That the assesse earn interest income, income from LTCG at Rs. NIL and rental income of Rs. 1,26,000/- have been offered. His case was reopened on the basis of cost of acquisition which claimed on higher side looking to a valuation report of registered valuer shri T J Shukla. A notice u/s 148 was issued and subsequently assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Addition of Rs. 1,03,76,967/-have been made without there being any evidence on record and ignoring valuation report of registered valuer. AO allowed Index cost of acquisition at Rs. 53,37,800/- as against appellant claimed of such cost at RS. 1,57,14,767/-. A penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have also been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particular and concealment of income. The assessment was completed on total income of Rs 1,05,67,337/- with an addition of Rs. 1,03,76,967/- on account of LTCG on the return income of Rs 1,90,370/-.