Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual engaged in the food grains business, filed his return for AY 2018-19 declaring business income and long-term capital gains on property sale. The case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of sale consideration being less than stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer determined a higher long-term capital gain, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) despite the assessee's objections and the DVO's valuation report.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the DVO's valuation report and the assessee's objections to it, despite mentioning the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring the principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition for long-term capital gains without considering the DVO's valuation report and the assessee's objections thereto.
Sections Cited
143(1), 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 144B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017- 18/10011331 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.
& 278/Agr/2025 have been filed by assessee against the same impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed in appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10166946 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal.
Since the facts and issue involved in all these appeals are almost similar, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts are only being narrated as under :
ITA No. 80/Agr/2022 (A.Y. 2018-19):
The brief facts state that the assessee is an individual and doing business of food grains. He filed return of income for A.Y. 2018-19, declaring total income from business at Rs. 2,84,852/- and Rs.18,39,483/- as income from long term capital gains on the sale of property. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “sale consideration of property shown in ITR is less than the value as per stamp authority”. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, Assessing Officer determined the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the details filed by assessee, dismissed assessee’s appeal.
Appellant assessee has approached this Tribunal in second appeal on the following grounds :
“1. The learned CIT (A) has erroneously upheld an addition of Rs. 96,32,000/-(Rupees Ninety-six lac thirty-two thousand only) and computed the long-term capital gain at Rs. 1,14,71,483/-on account of the difference between the circle value and the fair market value of the land.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the evidence and arguments submitted by the appellant.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO in respect of the long-term capital gain without discussing the valuation report submitted by the DVO and the objections raised by the Appellant. ………………..”
Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee and learned Sr. DR for revenue.
The sum and substance of all the grounds raised under appeal is as to whether ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the aforesaid addition in respect of long-term capital gain without taking DVO’s valuation report and assessee’s objections to it into consideration ?
Learned representative for assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has not considered the valuation report submitted by the DVO and assessee’s objections in respect thereof filed on ITBA portal. Hence, the impugned order be set aside.
Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
The factum of valuation report submitted by the DVO has not been questioned by the revenue. Perusal of the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed by ld. CIT(Appeals) shows that the assessee made submissions before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment without considering the valuation report, which was pending for submission. We notice that the ld. CIT(Appeals), though mentioned this fact in para-5 of the impugned order in the form of assessee’s submissions, however, ignored the fact of valuation report from being considered before passing the impugned order. In such circumstances, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for considering the valuation report submitted by DVO and assessee’s submissions thereon and pass order a fresh in accordance with law. We order accordingly. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
The facts and issue involved in this appeal is almost identical except that the assessment was completed without making any reference to the DVO, as stated in para 5 of the impugned order. Assessee’s objections in respect of the valuation also do not seem to have been considered by the first appellate authority. Hence, our finding recorded in this respect in shall mutatis mutandis apply in this appeal too.
Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. : course of arguments, learned representative for assessee has orally prayed for withdrawal of this appeal. Assessee’s prayer is accordingly accepted and this appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical is dismissed as withdrawn.