TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 15.02.2024 for A.Y.2014-15 by NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs. 2,01,60,785 made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the eccentric facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned additions. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not carrying out any inquiry with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Income tax Act and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing facility is mandatory in the new regime of Faceless appeal process. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted opportunity of being heard via videoconferencing. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by Ld. AO and upheld by the CIT(A) may please be deleted in the interest of natural justice and considering the eccentric facts of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Jayeshkumar Baldeobhai Patel, did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15. On scrutiny of the AIR and ITS data available with the Income Tax Department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold immovable property during the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it from agricultural to non-agricultural use should also be factored into the computation. Despite these submissions, the Assessing Officer found the reply unsatisfactory and proceeded to finalize the assessment based on the DVO's report. Accordingly, the assessee computed the long-term capital gain considering the DVO's fair market value of Rs. 5,17,000/- as on 01.04.1981 and after deducting proportionate premium paid and exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act. The revised computation resulted in Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,01,60,785/-, which was added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for concealment of income. 4. In the appeal filed by the assessee before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee is an individual and is primarily engaged in agricultural activities and transactions giving rise to capital gains. He did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15, under the genuine belief that his income was below the taxable limit. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had sold ancestral agricultural land located in Vastral, Ahmedabad for Rs. 7.91 crores, jointly held with his brother. The assessee's share from this transaction was Rs. 3.95 crores, and he had received this land upon the death of his mother in 2013. For the purpose of calculating capital gains, the assessee submitted a valuation report from an approved valuer, Shri P. K. Desai, who valued the la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 3.95 crores. On this basis, the AO made an addition of Rs.2.01 crores as long-term capital gains. The assessee challenged this assessment before the CIT(A) and submitted that the AO had ignored the peculiar facts of the case, including the ancestral nature of the property, the pre-SDV agreement, and the genuine valuation obtained from a local registered valuer. He also pointed out that the DVO's report was arbitrary and not based on relevant comparable sales. Despite these submissions, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without appreciating the circumstances and without affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing, which is mandated under the faceless appeal scheme. 6. In response, the Ld. DR pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal relating to the validity of reopening are dismissed. 8. With respect to the addition on account of long-term capital gains, we note that the assessee had relied on a Valuation Report dated 27.10.2017 from a registered valuer to determine the fair market value of the land at Rs. 300 per sq. metre. However, a perusal of the said Valuation Report reveals that no supporting comparable sales instances were provided. In fact, at page 5 of the report, the valuer himself has stated that only a few comparable instances are available, but no details of such transactions were actually included in the Valuation Report. Hence, the basis for adopting Rs.300 per sq. metre appears to be arbitrary and unsupported b....