LATA PRAVIN ALBEE,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SURAT

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad dated 11.07.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessee raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act raising demand of Rs. 3,94,990/-. 2. .The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the AO which itself was erroneous in the first place. 3. .The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the additional ground raised by the appellant, that when no addition was made on reason of reopening, other addition cannot sustain. 4. .The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty by AO despite the fact that appellant was not granted opportunity of hearing and ex-parte order was passed by AO. 5. Both the Lower authorities have passed the orders without property appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossing

ITA No.632/SRT/2018 Lata Pravin Albee ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and principles of natural justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is Non-resident Indian (NRI). The case of assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016.. The Assessing Officer recorded the reasons that in this case he has been received information regarding the sale of property from DDIT (Inv.)-III, Surat, through ITO, Ward-1 as the assessee was identified as non-filer in the ITD system. The assessee has not filed her return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee sold property during the year at Rs. 4,50,000/-, whereas the assessee paid stamp duty at Rs. 64,450/-. According to the Stamp Valuation Authority, value of property determined at Rs. 13,15,306/-. The case attracts application of section 50C of the Act. On the basis of such information the Assessing Officer made his belief that the assessee earned capital gain of Rs. 8.65 lacs, which required to be tax for the year under consideration. As no return of income is filed and the sale consideration of Rs. 13,15,306/- is unexplained, therefore, the Assessing officer is a reason to belief that the income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs. 13.15 lacs has escaped assessment within the provisions of section 147 2

ITA No.632/SRT/2018 Lata Pravin Albee of the Act. Notice under section 148 dated 14.03.2016 was issued after recording the reasons for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 with the prior approval of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer Prising) 3. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act the assessee filed her return of income on 06.11.2017 declaring income of Rs. 19,500/-. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notices proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee sold immovable property plot No. 296, Moje- Baleshwar, Taluka- Palsana, District- Surat for Rs. 4,50,000/- on 04.07.2009. The assessee claimed long term capital gain at (-) Rs. 4,53,697/- after taking sale consideration and claiming indexation cost of acquisition and transfer expenses. The Assessing Officer further recorded that as per stamp duty valuation from the value adopted by Stamp Duty Valuation Authority of this immovable property at Rs. 13,15,306/- on which stamp duty of Rs. 64,450/-was paid. The assessee was show cause as to why the value of Rs. 13,15,306/- should not be treated as full value of consideration as per provisions of section 50C of the Act and capital gain should not be recomputed on this amount of sale consideration. 4. The assessee filed her reply dated 21.11.2017. In the reply, the assessee stated that she has taken market value at FMV as per the valuation report of Assistant

ITA No.632/SRT/2018 Lata Pravin Albee valuation officer of Income Tax Department, Surat dated 26.052.2017. Who adopted the rate of land as on 07.07.2009 at Rs. 414/- per Sq. Mt. The assessee sold area 1686/-Sq. meter, the fair market value is worked out at Rs. 6,98,004/- ( 1686 sq, mt.*414) the assessee received sale consideration of Rs. 7,33,410/- and the sale consideration of land is taken at Rs. 7,33,410/-. The Assessing Officer further recorded that in the computation of income filed with the return of income, the assessee claimed index cost of acquisition of Rs. 11,72,107/- and the assessee did not furnished justification thereof. Copy of purchase deed was not furnished. The assessee was again show cause as to why the cost of acquisition claimed by assessee at Rs. 11,72,107/- should not be disallowed (disregarded). The assessee again filed his reply on 21.11.2017 the assessee stated that property in question was purchased by her father late Rangilbhai Morarbhai Patel before 01.04.1981, the assessee adopted fair market value as on 01.04.1981. As a part of property was inherited by her from her father, the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was considered as cost of acquisition based on valuation report issued by registered valuer Shri Ramesh Jain to the joint owner of plot No. 296, Moje- Baleshwar. The assessee has not claimed any cost of improvement while computing capital gain on sale of immovable property. The reply of the assessee was not excepted by Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer held that Assistant

ITA No.632/SRT/2018 Lata Pravin Albee Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department in his order dated 16.02.2016 has considered the objection of assessee as well as fair market value (FMV) adopted by registered valuer Shri Ramesh Jain and rejected the same. The Stamp Valuation Officer estimated the fair market value of land as on 01.04.1981 as per Sq. Mt.. The assessee sold 1686 Sq. Mt. and accordingly worked out indexation cost of Rs. 42,230/- and accordingly recomputed capital gain of Rs. 6,76,110/- and brought the same to taxation. 5. Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment as well as addition of long term capital gain. The assessee filed her written submission, the submission of assessee is recorded in paras 4 and 5 of the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) on reopening as well as to make long term capital gain. On the validity of reopening of ld. CIT(A) held that no specific ground of appeal was raised except raising submission in her written statement, therefore, legal plea of assessee was dismissed the appeal of assessee. On merit, the ld.CIT(A) observed that the DVO is a technical person and having computation to determine the real value of asset. Once the professional is taken view looking on the fact and circumstances of the case, which has rightly been done by the DVO, the valuation report can be

ITA No.632/SRT/2018 Lata Pravin Albee faulted for the purposes of computing of long term capital gain and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits as well. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed the present appeal before Tribunal. 6. The notice of hearing was sent to assessee by way of registered post on more than two occasions. The notice was duly served for the hearing fixed on 07.12.2021 as the AD card postal article (notice) is on record. The assessee was again served notice of hearing through RPAD which has been return back. On perusal of records show that authority letter of Shri Devan K. Kapadia, FCA and Shri Dhruv H. Hariwala, ACA is on record, who are regularly appearing before Tribunal in other matters. In these circumstances, we left no option except the hear the submissions of ld. Sr. Departmental representative (DR) for the Revenue and to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. 7. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authority. The ld. Sr. DR submits that the Assessing Officer recomputed the capital gain on the basis of report of DVO. The assessee neither before the Assessing Officer nor before ld. CIT(A) could substantiate about the loss on account of long term capital gain as claimed. Even now the assessee has not furnished any evidence to prove otherwise than the findings of lower authorities.

ITA No.632/SRT/2018 Lata Pravin Albee 8. We have considered the submission of ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, the order of lower authorities and the statement of fact mentioned in Form 35 filed before ld. CIT(A). We find that the Assessing Officer that made addition of long term capital gain on the basis of valuation report of DVO and held that the assessee has earned long term capital gain of Rs. 6,76,110/-. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by taking view that DVO is a technical person and valued the property after taking considering various facts and circumstances of the case. Before us neither the assessee has come forward nor filed any submissions or any documentary evidence to substantiate the various grounds of appeal. In absence of any evidence we are unable to deviate from the order of lower authorities which we affirm. 9. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order announced on 1st March, 2022 at the time of hearing in virtual court. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 01/03/2022 /SKM* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By order

//True Copy// Sr.Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Surat

ITA No.632/SRT/2018 Lata Pravin Albee Initial Date Draft order verbally dictated by author (JM) 01/03/2022 01/03/2022 Draft placed before author 01/03/2022 Draft proposed & placed before the second member 01/03/2022 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 01/03/2022 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 01/03/2022 Kept for pronouncement on 01/03/2022 File sent to the Bench Clerk 01/03/2022 Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. Date of dispatch of Order. Draft dictation sheets are attached