SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JHANSI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring income from business and long-term capital gains on property sale. The case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of sale consideration being less than the stamp authority value. The Assessing Officer determined a higher long-term capital gain. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the valuation report submitted by the DVO and the assessee's objections. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) upheld the addition for long-term capital gain without considering the DVO's valuation report and assessee's objections.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 143(3), 144B, 143(2), 142(1)
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2020-21
Surendra Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income-tax Officer, C/o Surendra Kumar Agarwal & Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi. Bros., B-24, Galla Mandi, Mauranipur (UP). PAN :AFQPA2033N (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Sanjeev Agarwal, CA Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 14.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.10.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
ITA No. 80/Agr/2025 has been preferred by assessee against the
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. ITA Nos. 255 & 278/Agr/2025 have been filed by assessee against the same impugned order dated 11.03.2025
ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/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
of ITA No. 80/Agr/2025 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.
2 | P a g e
ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025
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 ?
3 | P a g e
ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025
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.
4 | P a g e
ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025
ITA No. 255/Agr/2025 :
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 ITA No. 80/Agr/2025, shall mutatis mutandis apply in this appeal too.
Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 278/Agr/2025:
This appeal is the duplication of ITA No. 255/Agr/2025. During the
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.
In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical
purposes. ITA No. 278/Agr/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.10.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra 5 | P a g e
