MARUTI NIVRUTTI BHUJBAL,PUNE V. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 485/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal, the appellant, contesting the assessment of long-term capital gains on the sale of a land parcel in Pune for the assessment year 2004-05. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially assessed the capital gains based on the stamp duty valuation, which was significantly higher than the sale consideration reported by the appellant. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision after receiving a later valuation report from the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), which confirmed a higher fair market value than that used by the ITO. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the absence of the appellant's representation and upheld the valuation as per Section 50C of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778201 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ TRIPATHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; Valuation report; Value adopted by valuation officer
• Section: 147; 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.485/PUN/2025 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal, S.No.198, Bhujbal Wasti, Sade Satara Nali, Hadapsar, Haveli, Pune 411 028, Maharahstra PAN : AJOPB2240A Vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2004-05 is directed against the order dated 31.12.2024 of Addl/JCIT (A)-6, Kolkata passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 28.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s147 of the Act. 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even in the past when the case of the assessee was fixed hearing on 01.04.2025, 06.05.2025, 25.06.2025 and 24.07.2025 there was no representation. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua assessee with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available records. Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Manoj Tripathi (through virtual) Date of hearing : 09.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.485/PUN/2025 Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal 2 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other- On facts and circumstances and in law, 1. The Order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bearing order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071733475(1) dated 31/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT(A), NFAC and order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 dated 28/12/2011 passed by the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Pune are bad in law 2. Without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing an order having Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071733475(1) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31/12/2024 and order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28/12/2011 passed by the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Pune which need to be cancelled and relief sought by the Assessee should be granted 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred is not admitting the appeal filed by the Assessee in Form 35 against the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering and deciding the appeal filed by the Assessee on the basis of the merits of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the adoption of the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C of the Act without properly considering the appropriate fair market value of the property adopted in similar facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the claim that the property was owned by the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and not solely by the appellant in his individual capacity 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the cost of acquisition as on 01.04. 1981 at ₹161.40 per square metre without considering valid evidence from the appellant and that available on record 8. The order passed by the lower authorities is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 9. The Assessee hereby requests for allowing any other relief as available under the law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.485/PUN/2025 Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal 3 10. The Assessee prays before your honor to afford and allow the Assessee an opportunity of being heard on merits of the case. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and after issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 14.03.2011 assessment proceedings were initiated. The reasons for reopening was the information received from M/s. City Corporation Ltd. over the transfer of land effected through Development Agreement on 09.12.2003 for sale consideration of Rs.66,42,000/- and the assessee’s share is Rs.15,32,925/- and the total land holding is 8100 sq.mtrs of which 1/4th is the assessee’s share at 205 sq.mtrs. After serving of valid statutory notices during the course of re-assessment proceedings assessee challenged the valuation for stamp duty purposes within the meaning of section 50C of the Act. Reference made to the DVO but the report was not received till the conclusion of the re- assessment proceedings. As per the valuation of the said land located at Sadesatranali, Hadapsar, Pune-28 the stamp duty of the property is Rs.1,14,84,140/- as on the date of Development Agreement. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has taken the basis of the valuation of land at Rs.1,14,84,140/- and calculated the long term capital gain for 1/4th share of the assessee adopting the amount of sale consideration as per the provisions of section 50C at Rs.28,71,035/- and after allowing the benefit of cost of acquisition at Rs.15,13,246/-, computed the long term capital gain at Rs.13,57,790/-. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. AO assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) who on examining the facts of the case, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.485/PUN/2025 Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal 4 observed that in the report of the DVO received at the later date after the passing of the assessment order, the Fair Market Value of the land in question is determined at Rs.1,56,98,800/- and the same being higher than the sale consideration adopted by ld. AO, confirmed the finding of the ld. AO. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A). 7. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before me. The grievance of the assessee is multifold raising the legal issues as well as merits of the case about the computation of long term capital gain from the sale of 1/4th share of land located at Sadesatranali, Hadapsar. I observe that ld.CIT(A) has affirmed the order of ld.AO observing as follows : “5. DECISION:- 5.1 I have carefully gone through the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with sec. 147, the grounds of appeal and submission made by the appellant in this regard. Briefly stating facts of the case is that it was reopened for assessment u/s 147 on the basis of certain information about concealment of income related to capital gains on sale of immovable property and assessment completed u/s 143(3) read with sec. 147 of the Act by considering the value of the property sold as assessed by stamp duty valuation authority as the deemed sale consideration received u/s 50C of the Act. The appellant has challenged such treatment in the assessment order and has raised several grounds of appeal. 5.2 Grounds of appeal number 1, 4, 5 and 6 are general in nature and needs no separate adjudication. 5.3 Ground number 2 is against considering the value assessed by the stamp valuation authority as deemed sale consideration as per sec. 50C of the Act. Facts involved on this issue is that the appellant sold a plot of land and as per deed of conveyance, the sale consideration received was Rs.66,42,000/-. On the other hand, the value of the property as on the date of transfer was assessed at Rs. 1,14,84,140/-by the stamp duty valuation authority. The appellant Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.485/PUN/2025 Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal 5 objected to the value so assessed and therefore assessing officer referred the valuation to DVO as required as per sec. 50C(2) of the Act. The valuation report from DVO was however not received before the passing of the assessment order and therefore assessing officer computed the long term capital gains by considering the value assessed by stamp duty valuation authority as the deemed sale consideration u/s 50C of the Act with the rider' subject to findings/conclusion of the DVO'. 5.3 During the appellate proceedings, the assessing officer was asked to intimate whether the valuation report from DVO was received or not. The assessing officer furnished his report, the relevant portion of which is produced as under:- \"03. In this case, the long term capital gain of the assessee was worked out by adopting the sale consideration as per Section 50C of the I.T. Act which is at Rs. 1,14,84,140/- as against Rs. 66,42,000/- adopted by the assessee. 04. The assessee's main contention before the CIT(A) is that the sale consideration shall be taken as per agreement and not as per Section 50C. A reference was already made to the DVO. However, the DVO's report was not received before completing the assessment. 05. A copy of valuation report has now been received in this office, according to which the Fair Market Values of the property- Land at Survey No. 198/5A/1, 198/58/4, 198/5B/8A/1, Sade Satra Nali Hadapsar Pune 411028, in the case of Shri Maruti N. Bhujbal, Pune is determined at Rs. 1,56,98,000/- (Rs. One Crore Fifty-Six Lakh & Ninety-Eight Thousand Only) as on 20/01/2004 & Rs. 5,64,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh & Sixty Four Thousand only as on 01/04/1981 06. Under the circumstances the sale price of Rs.1,14,84,140/- adopted by the Assessing Officer as per government valuation for stamp duty purpose within the meaning of Sec. 50C of the Act, appears to be correct as the value as per DVO report is on higher side. 07. A copy of the said Valuation Report is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal 08. As far as other grounds of appeal are concerned, the same are more or less general in nature. Submitted for favour of information.\" It is therefore clear from DVO's report that the fair market value of the property was much more than even the value assessed by stamp valuation authority. Hence the assessing officer rightly considered the assessed value by stamp duty valuation authority as the deemed sale Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.485/PUN/2025 Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal 6 consideration u/s 50C of the Act. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed. 5.4 Ground number 3 is against taking the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.161.40 per square metre. Appellant claimed that the same should have been taken at a much lower figure. The facts involved on this issue is that since the property was acquired by the appellant prior to 01.04.1981, its value as on 01.04.1981 was required to be considered as the cost of acquisition for calculating the indexed cost of acquisition as on the date of transfer. Since no material on this issue was provided by the appellant, the assessing officer observed that regular assessment in the cases of a number of other individuals, who had sold plots of land of similar nature and in the same locality were completed, where the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 was taken at Rs.161.40 per square metre. Hence following the assessments in such cases, AO took the same rate in appellant's case. On this issue also, I do not find any infirmity in AO's action. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed. 5.5 Although the appellant has not raised any specific ground of appeal on the issue of the land being owned by HUF and not solely by him, it is to be stated that appellant submitted that the plot of land belonged to the HUF of which he was the karta and there were four other members of the said HUF. According to appellant, the capital gains, if any on sale of the said plot of land should be apportioned among the 5 members equally and not solely to him. However, the appellant failed to produce any evidence, either during assessment proceedings or during these appellate proceedings to substantiate his claim that the property was owned by HUF having 5 members. So such claim made by appellant is also rejected. In result, the appeal is dismissed.” 8. From perusal of the above finding, I find that ld.CIT(A) has dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee in the instant appeal and further on considering the Departmental Valuation Report determining the valuation of land at Rs.1,56,98,000/- has accepted the sale price adopted by ld. AO as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act at Rs.1,14,84,140/-, since the DVOs report was not received before the culmination of the re-assessment proceedings. Since there is no representation on behalf of the assessee about the issues raised in the instant appeal inspite of being providing sufficient opportunities Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.485/PUN/2025 Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal 7 assessee has failed to furnish any submissions/details, under these given facts and circumstances of the case, I fail to find any infirmity in the finding of ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 09th day of October, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 09th October, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "