Varshaben Rajnikant Patel, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Wd. 2(3)(4), Surat

ITA 148/SRT/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0858 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 148/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Virtual hearing) Varshaben Rajnikant Patel, 23, Om Sai Row House, B/s Someshwara Society, Vesu Road, Vesu, Surat-395007. PAN No. APPPP 7550 L Vs. I.T.O., Ward 2(3)(4), Surat. Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Ketan Jagirdar, CA Department represented by Shri Shaurya Shaswat Shukla, Sr.DR Date of hearing 25/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 13/10/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, the NFAC) dated 21/08/2021 for the Assessment year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming order of ld. AO to refer the matter of valuation of property as on 01/4/1981 to DVO u/s 55A(b)(i). 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming order of ld. AO taking into consideration report of the DVO valuing the property u/s 55A(b)(i) for assessment of capital gains when report of Registered valuer was on record. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming order of ld. AO by taking into consideration report of the DVO valuation of the property which was based on erroneous, irrelevant comparative data and assumptions.” ITA No.148/Srt/2021 Varshaben Rajnikant Patel Vs ITO 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 on 24/02/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,34,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown income from ‘house property’, ‘business income’ and income from ‘other sources’. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice that during the relevant financial year, the assessee also received consideration of sale of some immovable property. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of capital gain on sale of such property. In response to notice of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed revised computation and offered capital gain for taxation and paid tax on capital gain in revised computation. The assessee also made request to consider the revised computation for completing the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer examined the claim of capital gain and noted that assessee is one of the co-owner having 6.67% share in land admeasuring 6500 Square Meter at Mauza village-Singanpore, revenue survey No. 53/1D, T.P. No. 26, F.P. No. 64, Surat. The property was acquired prior to 01/04/1981, therefore, the assessee claimed indexation of cost from 01/04/1981. The assessee shown cost of acquisition of her share alongwith her daughter namely Ekta Rajnikant Patel and son Jaimin Rajnikant Patel at Rs. 650000/- as on 01/04/1981. The assessee and her two children are owner of 1/5 th share of entire land admeasuring 6500 Square Meter. To support her