MANISHABNE KAIZAD MOTAWALA,SURAT V. ITO, WARD 2(3) (1), SURAT

ITA 807/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Manishabne Kaizad Motawala against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the AO's addition to the assessed income for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The dispute centered on the cost of acquisition of an ancestral property, which was sold, and the capital gains tax was applied. The assessee argued that the cost of acquisition should be based on a valuation of Rs. 1,100 per square meter as per the Registered Valuation Officer's report, whereas the AO adopted a lower valuation of Rs. 1,000 per square meter as estimated by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case involving co-owners of the property, sided with the assessee and accepted the higher valuation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832332 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Punit Babubhai Patel
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सूरत \u0010ा यपीठ ‘एस.एम.सी’, सूरत । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH ‘SMC’, SURAT [conducted through Virtual Court at Ahmedabad Benches, Ahmedabad] \u001aी संजय गग , \u0010ा ियक सद क े सम\"। Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.807/SRT/2025 िनधा \u0010रण वष\u0010 /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Manishabne Kaizad Motawala A-32, Yoganand Nagar Sacin Roadsankri Akoti B.O., Surat 394 355 (Gujarat) बनाम/ v/s. The TTO Ward-2(3)(1) Surat – 395 001 \u0014थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AOTPP 0951 L (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 19/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 04/06/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-2023. 2. The assessee, in this appeal, has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the total assessed income at Rs. 13,61,528/- for A.Y. 2022-23. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.807/SRT/2025 Manishabne Kaizad Motawala vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2022-23 2 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the cost of acquisition of the ancestral property situated at R.S. No. 265, Block No. 284, Sachin, Tal Choryasi, Dist. Surat as on 01.04.2001 at Rs. 1,57,83,000/- instead of correct value of Rs. 1,73,61,300/- applied by the assessing officer. 3. Hon'ble CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the case of a co-owner of the same property Mrs. Gayantriben Amishkumar Patel, the learned assessing officer had accepted the valuation of Rs. 1100/- per meter. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend, to modify and change the present grounds of appeal.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had sold property for Rs.1,25,00,000/- and offered capital gain tax on the same. While doing so, the assessee took the cost of acquisition at Rs.39,00,28,299/- and the indexed cost of Rs.1,24,52,391/- which was arrived by taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.1,100/- per sq. meter as per Registered Valuation Officer’s report as on 01/04/2001. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), who estimated the value at Rs.1,000/- per sq.meter as on 1.4.2001. The AO calculated the indexed cost of acquisition on the basis of DVO’s report and added the differential amount. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the AO. 5. The Ld.AR of the assessee, before me ,has submitted that the DVO has only estimated the value and there is a minor difference of Rs.100 per sq. meter only between the valuation done by the Registered Valuer and the DVO. He has further submitted that in the case of Joint/Co-owners, similar issue had arisen, wherein the AO had called for DVO’s report and in that case also, finally, the AO accepted the cost of acquisition at Rs.1,100/- per sq.meter. He also referred to paper book at page No.141, which is a copy of the assessment order in the case of “Punit Babubhai Patel”, wherein, in respect of the same transaction, the cost of acquisition shown by the Registered Valuer has been accepted. Under the circumstances, in my view, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.807/SRT/2025 Manishabne Kaizad Motawala vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2022-23 3 addition, because of miner difference in estimation of the value as on 01/04/2001, is not warranted. Therefore, the impugned addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19/01/2026. Sd/- ( Sanjay Garg ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 19/01/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध , अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर , सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. 6. गाड\u0010 फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT,Surat/Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (dictation pad is attached with the file)) : 08.1.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 11.1.2026 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 19.1.26 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 19.1.26 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 Despatch of the Order : Printed from counselvise.com "