PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the assessee against
the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi in
appeal No. CIT(A), Agra-1/10066/2020-21 u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961, herein after referred to as ‘the Act’, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has
dismissed assessee’s first appeal against the intimation order dated
15.07.2020 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
ITA No.355/Agr/2025
At the very outset, ld. AR has drawn the attention of the Bench
towards assessee’s delay condonation application supported with
affidavit that this appeal was filed on 18.07.2025 against the
impugned order dated 24.08.2022 by a delay of about 999 days,
submitting that the assessee was unaware of the date of passing the
impugned order. Appellant assessee came to know only on
13.07.2025, when he received message of outstanding demand for the
year under consideration. After seeking, legal opinion, this appeal was
filed immediately. Delay condonation application is supported with
asseesse’s uncontroverted affidavit, hence the ground of delay are
treated sufficient. The delay caused in filing this second appeal stands
condoned.
The brief facts state that the appellant assessee filed his return
of Income for the year under consideration, declaring total Income at
Rs. 5,24,040/- and worked out long term capital gain/loss of (-)
2,72,271/- on sale of two plots of land as under.
1) Land 03/12/2018 Value u/s 50C 1129000 Sale Consideration Received 900000 Sale Consideration 900000 Less: Transfer Expenses 0 900000 Less: indexed Cost Cost 1238938 F.Y. 2004-05 500000/113*280 2 | P a g e
ITA No.355/Agr/2025
1238938 -338938 2) Plot of Land 27/03/2019 Value u/s 50C 1552000 Sale Consideration Received 600000 Sale Consideration 600000 Less: Transfer Expenses 0 600000 Less: indexed Cost Cost 533333 F.Y. 2002-03200000/105*280 533333 Total Long term Capital Gain 66667 Capital Loss Rs. 272271/- will not be set off -272271 From any other head of Income
Further stating that the plots are situated in malinbasti at a
distance of 1km from main road, in Nagar Nigam area, Agra, whose
‘fair market value’ is far below the circle rate. The return was
processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, and an adjustment of Rs 11,81,000/-
was made by CPC, Bangalore/AO.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against
the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 15.07.2020, who dismissed
assessee’s first appeal.
Assessee has filed this appeal on the following grounds:
1) Because without giving intimation either in writing or electronic mode, the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) have been wrongly and illegally been invoked by CPC for making adjustment of Rs. 11,81,000/- and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on different ground.
3 | P a g e
ITA No.355/Agr/2025
2) Because there was no incorrect claim in the return, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by referring the provisions of section 50C of the Act without considering the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
3) Because the appellant had not accepted stamp valuation and filled appropriate column in ITR for the purpose, the authorities below have erred in adopting the sale value as per 50C of the Act.
4) Because the case law applied is distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
5) Because the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the judgments of Hon’ble ITAT placed on record which are identical to the facts of the present case. ……..’’ 6. Pursued the records. Heard ld. Representative for the appellant
assessee and ld. Sr. DR for the respondent revenue.
The sum and substance of assessee’s grievance on the basis of
aforesaid grounds, is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the
adjustment of Rs. 11,81,000/- made u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC,
Bangalore/AO, by adopting the sale value of the two plots sold, as per
the provision of section 50C of the Act.
Ld. AR has submitted that assessee received the first notice
dated 06.02.2020 before intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, but no
response could be made due to wide spread global pandemic, Covid-
The second notice dated 04.06.2020 was not served upon the
assessee. Assessee, specifically mentioned in the return that “ While
calculating Long Term Capital Gain do not take value of property as
4 | P a g e
ITA No.355/Agr/2025
per Stamp Value Authority as the assessee claim that the value
adopted for stamp valuation is not accepted.” In such circumstances,
the said adjustment could not be made u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Ld.
AR has referred order dated 26.02.2020 passed by Visakhapatnam
Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 152/Viz/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16,
M/s. VisakhaJilla Nava NirmanaSamiti& order dated 08.10.2021
passed by Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.
320/Chny/2021and S.P. No. 33/Chny/2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 The
Ceylon Pentecostal Mission V. The ACIT(CPC), Bangalore, in support
of his arguments.
Ld. Sr. DR. for the respondent revenue has submitted that the
assessee, admittedly furnished the required information in respect of
the value of the two plots as per section 50C of the Act also along with
alleged sale consideration and further he did not respond to the two
notices dated 06.02.2020 and 04.06.2020, which were issued and
served upon the assessee before the said adjustment, hence
supported the impugned order.
It is well established principle of law that intimation u/s 143(1)
is not a regular assessment but deals only with summary adjustment.
However, the proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act mandates an
5 | P a g e
ITA No.355/Agr/2025
intimation to be given to the assessee before any proposed adjustment
as provided under section 143(1)(a)(i to vi) of the Act. The capital gain
has to be computed u/s 48 r/w 50C of the Act. In the case in hand,
ld.AO has tried to make prima facie adjustment on the basis of the
informations furnished by the assessee in the return. However, the
notice dated 06.02.2020,though, served upon assessee, could not be
responded by the assessee due to spread of Global pandemic, Covid-
19 and the second notice dated 04.06.2020 was never served upon
assessee on the e-portal as stated by the assessee.
We take notice of the factum that the principles of natural
justice are the bed rock, over which, the tribunal system works.
Assessee does not seem to have been afforded substantial opportunity
of hearing before the said adjustment of Rs. 11,81,000/- made u/s
143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, by the CPC Bangalore(AO).The issue under
consideration requires verification with relevant documents/valuation
report. In the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of
the justice, the matter deserves to be restored to the jurisdictional
Assessing officer for examining the issue of Capital Gain on the basis
of documentary evidences. The matter is accordingly restored to the
file of jurisdictional Assessing officer to examine the issue after
6 | P a g e
ITA No.355/Agr/2025
obtaining valuation report and after considering assessee’s
documentary evidence/submissions. We direct the assessee to be
diligent and cooperative in making submissions before the assessing
officer. Needless to say that assessing officer shall ensure the
compliance of the principles of natural justice. According to the facts
of the M/s. Visakha(supra) and the Ceylon(supra), no
intimations/notices were issued at all to the concerned assesses
before making an adjustment of Capital Gain, whereas, according to
the facts of the instant case, admittedly, first notice dated 06.02.2020
was served but remained unresponded by the assessee, hence, the
facts of the case in hand are easily distinguishable. The appeal is
liable to be allowed for statistical purposes accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Impugned order dated 24.08.2022 and intimation u/s 143(1)(a) dated
15.07.2020 are set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26.11.2025
7 | P a g e
ITA No.355/Agr/2025
