AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 02.03.2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the facts are that the AO received information that the Appellant had sold property for an amount of Rs.37,35,250/- during AY 2009-10. Thereafter, it appears that enquiry letters issued by the Ld. AO were not responded to. Thereafter the assessee field a return of income on 16.01.2016 declaring an income of Rs.1,49,019/-. Subsequently, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 17.03.2016. It is seen that opportunities given were not adequately responded to by the assessee at the Ld. AO’s level and thereafter an addition of Rs.59,98,140/- was made by adopting the stamp value of the property.
The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with this grievance and there also he could not succeed on the basis of findings given in para 5 at page 4 of the impugned order, to the extent that there was apparently no material available with the Ld. CIT(A) to take any view other than whatever has been done by the Ld. AO.
In the meantime apparently this matter was referred to the District Valuation Officer who, vide his report dated 28.09.2018, assessed the fair market value of the property as on 23.06.2008 at Rs.41,56,000/- against the assessee’s declared value of Rs.37,35,250/-. It has been submitted in writing by the Ld. AR that the assessee has no objection to this enhanced valuation by the DVO.
The assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which state that firstly the issue in question is regarding ancestral agricultural land and hence exempted from any capital gains. The second major ground is that the DVO’s report has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) even though the same was available with the AO by the time the impugned proceedings were being finalized.
Before us, the Ld. AR relied on written submissions and a detailed paper book filed for our perusal. It was the submission that the assessee would abide by the valuation done by the DVO. It was a further submission that this matter deserves to be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for considering the DVO’s report and thereafter assessing the correct income of the assessee.
The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and stated that there would be no objection in case the matter was to be remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us. It is seen that while there has been inadequate representation before the authorities below, it is obvious that once the DVO’s report is already on record then there is no reason why it should not be considered. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment after considering the DVO’s report and also considering any other arguments of the assessee.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.