BHARAT JASWANTLAL BHATT,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(6), SURAT

िनधा�रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA राज� की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 10.12.2024 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 21.01.2025 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)] dated 22.02.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.10.2019.

2. Rival submission of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits that during the year under consideration assessee sold a property for a consideration of Rs.60,27,000/-. The Stamp Valuation Authority (Sub-Registrar Office, Surat- 3, Navagam) valued the transaction of property for the purposes of registration of sale deed valued the said property at Rs.86,74,012/-. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order in pursuance of reopening proceedings made addition of value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority, instead of taxing the difference vis-à-vis actual sale consideration and the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority. The assessee alongwith other co-owners have acquired the said property prior to 01.04.1981. Neither any reference to Valuation officer for estimation of fair market value was made by Assessing Officer nor any benefit of cost of acquisition was allowed by Assessing Officer. Before Ld.CIT(A) assessee filed written submission as recorded in para-1.3 of impugned order at page-3. The assessee also furnished additional evidence in the form of Government approved valuer to substantiate the market value of land as on 01.04.1981. The share of assessee was only 30%. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that additional evidence furnished by assessee was not accepted by Ld.CIT(A) by taking view that condition prescribed for admission of additional evidence is not available to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessee. Before us, the assessee also furnished working of capital gain of Rs.13,34,097/-. The assessee purchased a residential flat and invested part of capital gains and thus entitled for deduction under section 54F. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that neither the Assessing Officer considered the cost of acquisition nor made any reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for estimation of fair market value nor additional evidence filed by assessee was admitted by Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. AR of the assesse has prayed before the Bench that the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to refer the matter to District Valuation Officer for estimation of fair market value of asset as on 01.04.1981 and to tax gain on share of assessee only. The assessee may further be allowed to raise additional claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that as per the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (2014) 46 taxmann.com 30 (Guj)/[2014] 225 Taxman 168 (Guj) (Mag.)[2014] 367 ITR 85 (Guj)/[2014] 270 CTR 66(Guj) [02-04-2014] the assessee is entitled to raise additional claim if it was available. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that additional claim of assessee may be accepted and further direction may be given to Assessing Officer to re-compute capital gains after obtaining report from District Valuation Officer and consider the report of Government Approved Valuer. Further to allow exemption under section 54F of the Act.