Vinod Kumar Jain , Dehradun V. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Taxation , Delhi

ITA 610/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Vinod Kumar Jain, the appellant, who contested the assessment of his taxable income and the addition of long-term capital gains by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1 (1) Intt. Taxation, Delhi. The primary contention was regarding the incorrect assessment of his income and the refusal to rectify apparent errors by the ADIT, CPC Bengaluru. The assessee argued that the property in question was an ancestral house, jointly owned with his brother, and that he had reported only his share of the capital gains. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to lack of evidence on the property's acquisition date and joint ownership. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the valuation report provided by the assessee, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116218 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Fair market value; Valuation report; Capital Gains
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.610/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vinod Kumar Jain 23, EC Road Back, Gate Dehradun -248001 PAN No.ADQPJ5093F Vs DCIT Circle -1 (1) (1) Intt. Taxation Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. dR Date of hearing: 07/02/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 07/02/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-42, Delhi dated 03.01.2022 pertaining to A.Y.2019-20. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the following actions of the ADIT, CPC Bengaluru:- i. refusing to rectify errors apparent on record; 2 ii. determining taxable income at Rs.1,77,06,680/- against the returned income in a sum of Rs.88,70,680/- in violation of natural justice, equity and fairness; iii. making addition of Rs.88,36,000/- on account of long term capital gains without any valid grounds and cogent material; 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of repetitive notices sent through RPAD but returned back. We decided to proceed exparte. The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the returned income of the assessee was processed vide intimation u/s. 143 (1) of the Act dated 15.07.2020 at Rs.1,77,06,680/- against Rs.88,70,680/-. 5. The assessee moved an application for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act which was dismissed by the CPC, Bangluru. 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) before whom he vehemently contended that the assessee disclosed following income in his returned of income :- 3 7. It was explained that the impugned house property was an ancestral house property jointly owned by his brother who has also declared capital gain in his return of income. In support the assessee filed a valuation report justifying the fair market value as on 01.04.2001. The capital gain from the sale of impugned property was shown at 50% of the total consideration as the other 50% belonged to his brother Santosh Jain. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on 2 counts firstly the assessee could not produce any evidences to show that the property was acquired before 01.04.2001 and secondly the assessee could not adduce any evidences in respect of joint ownership of the property. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee did file valuers report dated 25.07.2018 in support of fair market value as on 01.04.2001. The said report must contain the details 4 of the impugned property. Though the assessee has returned only 50% of the total consideration the balance 50% needs to be verified. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore this issue to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to avail this opportunity and furnish both the details namely the evidence in support of the claim that the property was acquired prior to 01.04.2001 and secondly the details of co- ownership and the return of this brother Santosh Jain. The AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 10. Decision announced in the open court on 07.02.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: .02.2023 *Neha* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CITi 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi