TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ises of its members on 22.01.2018 by the Dy. Director of Income Tax Department, Ambala. The case of assessee was also covered under Section 132 of the Act. Later on, assessment jurisdiction over the case of assessee along with other group cases was centralized and transferred to the Office of Ld. AO by Ld. PCIT-12, Delhi vide order dated 05.08.2019. The assessee e-filed his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 07.10.2017 before ITO, Ward-33(1), New Delhi declaring total income of Rs. 7,47,320/-. Notice under Section 153A of the Act dated 19.09.2019 for filing of return of income was issued. Assessee submitted copy of return already filed on 02.10.2019. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 09.10.2019 was issued. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 09.10.2019. Shri Viney Goel, FCA, counsel for the assessee, attended proceedings filed part reply. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 31.12.2019 made addition of Rs. 49,03,185/-. 3. Against order dated 31.12.2019 of Ld. Assessing Officer, appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 25.05.2022. 4. Being a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record by the assessee in this regard. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above addition by indulging in surmises without bringing on any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumption and assumption. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal." 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed the addition of Rs. 28,64,067/- made by the Ld. AO by restricting the index cost of construction. The assessee has incurred cost of construction way back in the financial year 1997-98. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in support of its contention, has submitted all the details vide letter dated 14.11.2019. Another letter dated 14.11.2019 placed at page no. 50 of the paper books and one other letter dated 11.11.2019 was also placed at page no. 58 of the paper books. The assessee has incurred a sum of Rs. 57,600/- in respect of boundary wall and land fill and Rs. 11,45,000/- on construction. The Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the fact that assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Authorized Representative for the Department of Revenue submitted that the departmental authorities have fairly decided the matter. 7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. AO vide order dated 31.12.2019 made the addition of Rs. 49,03,185/- under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain'. Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.05.2022 partially confirmed the addition of Rs. 28,64,067/- by restricting the index cost of construction in the financial year 1997-98. 8. The appellant/assessee, a lady is not engaged in any business. Valuation Report of the property is at page nos. 51 to 57 of the paper books. The Valuer inspected property on 25.03.2016, gave every detail about the type of construction and stated basis of valuation on page no. 54 of the paper books. Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the valuation report. 9. A Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.2349/Del/2023 titled as "Jaswin Kaur Sethi vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgaon in order dated 30.07.2025 in para nos. 4 to 10 held as under: "4. After taking into consideration the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that in the valuation report the fair mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal analysis. The same cannot be brushed aside on bald allegations that valuation done has been on higher side. As a matter of fact, supplementary comparable sale deeds were provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings to corroborate the FMV determined by the registered valuer in the valuation report, however, the same have also not been considered by the AO. The AO having sufficient powers of inquiry on his own has also not done any exercise of his own to inquire into the value of the surrounding property to disturb the FMV given by the qualified expert. 6. Then, without mentioning reasons for not making reference to Departmental Valuation Officer, assumption of jurisdiction to determine the value on his own, on the basis of circle rates and that too by interpolation and extrapolation of the rates was certainly not sustainable and, therefore, the DRP had rightly intervened to hold that AO was supposed to refer to DVO. 6 ITA No.2349/Del/2023 However, we find that DRP also committed an error in giving direction to compute the cost of acquisition of the impugned property by applying Land & Development Office conversion rates. 7. We find justification in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port of the registered valuer. The registered valuation officer is a technical expert and the opinion of an expert cannot be thrown out without bringing any material to the contrary on record. In case the AO was not agreeable with the report of the registered valuer, he was duty bound to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the land as on which he failed to do so. The tribunal held that the revenue has not discharged the onus but merely rejected the fair market value taken by the assessee. It set aside the order of the CIT (A) and directed the AO to recompute the capital gain after taking the fair market value of the land as on 1/4/1981, as claimed by the assessee. Fair market value of the land as on 1/4/1981 estimated by the registered valuer being based on sound factual basis and the phenomenal development in that area could not be rejected by the AO without assigning any specific reasons. 5.2 In the case of CWT Vs Raghunath Singh Thakur (304 ITR 268 HP) the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that if the Assessing Officer does not agree with the report regarding the valuer relied upon by the assessee, rejection of such valuer&....