BHIKHABHAI KALIDAS PADHIYAR,VADODARA V. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

ITA 2373/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bhikhabhai Kalidas Padhiyar, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2016-17. The primary issues revolved around the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent additions made concerning the alleged Long Term Capital Gain from the sale of immovable property. The appellant challenged the valuation of the property, arguing that the FMV adopted by the Assessing Officer was incorrect and not based on a specific DVO report for his case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835319 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2373/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bhikhabhai Kalidas Padhiyar, 0 Derawala Faliya, Near Mahadev Mandir, Danteshwar, Pratapnagar, Baroda, Gujarat-390004 [PAN : ACZPP 4162 H] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee represented by : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue represented by: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short) dated 12.11.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the action of AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming addition of Rs.86,88,694/-made in respect of alleged Long Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable property. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the action of AO as to adopting FMV of the immovable property as at 01.04.1981 at Rs.40/- per Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2373/Ahd/2025 Bhikhabhai Kalidas Padhiyar Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– square meter as against Rs.250/- per square meter adopted by assessee (based on valuation report of a registered valuer). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming the action of AO as to not making reference to DVO u/s 55A of the Act specifically in the case of the assessee for determination of FMV of the immovable property in question as at 01.04.1984. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in not admitting additional evidence going to the root of the matter. 6. Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective.” 3. Straight to the issue:- 3.1 In pursuance to the notice issued u/s 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment determining the FMV of the land based on the valuation report of the DVO in other unrelated case. It is an undisputed fact on record that the Assessing Officer has not referred the case of the assessee to the DVO. Hence, we hold that the FMV arrived at by the Assessing Officer, in the absence of any report from the DVO specific to the assessee’s case, cannot be held to be valid. Hence, the addition made is directed to be deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 11.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 11/02/2026 **btk Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2373/Ahd/2025 Bhikhabhai Kalidas Padhiyar Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 3– आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ………. 10.02.2026….. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …….10.02.2026….. 3. Other Member……….10.02.2026………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……...10.02.2026….………. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement ……11.02.2026…. 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S ……11.02.2026………………. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ……11.02.2026…. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "