PRABARTAK TRUST,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 7(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2409/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Prabartak Trust, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2020-21. The primary contention was the application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which led to the addition of Rs.4,83,77,688 as alleged Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) based on the stamp duty valuation of a property sold, significantly higher than the actual sale consideration. The Trust argued that the property was sold under distress and had various encumbrances, which were not considered in the valuation. The Tribunal found merit in the Trust's request for a re-evaluation of the property considering the cost of acquisition and the circumstances of the sale, leading to the remand of the case to the AO.

• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report; Assessment record; Procedural lapse; Bogus
• Section: 148; 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s).: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s): 2020-21 Prabartak Trust Vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAFCP0639Q Appearances: Assessee represented by : S. Bhattachaya, Adv. Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 11-February-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 26-March-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 21.08.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “(1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in dismissing the Appeal of the appellant made against the action of the Assessing Officer in applying Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and making an addition of Rs.4,83,77,688 as alleged Long-term Capital Gains of the appellant. (2) That without prejudice to the Contention raised in Ground No.(1) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that in view of the non-compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act in regard to the determination of the Fair Market Value by the Departmental Valuation Officer, the addition made of Rs.4,83,77,788 as the alleged Long- term Capital Gain, should have been held to be wrong and consequently rejected. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. (3) That without prejudice to the Contentions raised in Grounds Nos. (1) and (2) above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that for assessing the Capital Gain it had been required of the Assessing Officer to deduct the Cost of Acquisition of the property sold by the appellant. (4) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground of grounds of Appeal at or before the hearing of the Appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was found to have sold an immovable property for ₹55 Lakh to M/s. Bhagwati Construction Company during the FY 2019-20 relevant to the AY 2020-21, the value for the purpose of stamp duty of which had been determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority at ₹4,83,77,686/- and the assessee had also received interest income of ₹64,710/- from State Bank of India. Since the assessee had failed to furnish the return of income for the impugned A.Y., the reassessment proceeding was initiated vide notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2024. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') also issued a show cause notice as to why the addition should not be made as the assessee had capital gains from sale of immovable property for a consideration of ₹55 Lakh during the year under consideration on which tax was also deducted at source which was reflected in Form No. 26AS and whose value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority was ₹4,83,77,686/-. The Ld. AO added a sum of ₹4,83,77,686/- as long-term capital gains by invoking section 50C of the Act is against the loss of ₹4,12,452/- shown in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, which was deducted and the total income was assessed at ₹4,79,65,234/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who considered the grounds of appeal, the submission of the assessee filed in the course of the appeal and also the DVO’s order u/s 55A of the Act which para-wise had dealt with the objections raised by Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. the assessee including the written submission dated 24.02.2025 and the comments were also annexed to the order of the DVO u/s 55A of the Act dated 06.03.2025. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and his findings are extracted as under: “7.1 I have carefully examined the grounds of appeal, the assessment order, the statement of facts filed along with Form No. 35, and the detailed written submissions furnished by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 4,83,77,686/- brought to tax as Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG). The grounds are adjudicated as under: 7.2. Ground No. 1: This ground challenges the addition of Rs. 4,83,77,686/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of the difference between the sale consideration declared at Rs. 55,00,000/- and the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 4,83,77,686/- in respect of the immovable property sold during the year under consideration. 7.3 As recorded in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that the appellant sold the property for Rs. 55,00,000/-, whereas the Stamp Valuation Authority had determined its value at Rs. 4,83,77,686/-. The appellant neither disclosed LTCG in its return of income nor furnished details of the cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer, therefore, applied section 50C, adopted the stamp duty valuation as deemed consideration, and treated the resultant as taxable LTCG. 7.4 In the appeal proceedings, the appellant contended that the sale was a bona fide distress transaction conducted at the prevailing market price after accounting for adverse factors such as the dilapidated condition of the property, encumbrances of tenancy, presence of unauthorized occupants, and locational disadvantages. Reliance was placed on comparative sale instances to demonstrate that the declared consideration was fair. The appellant argued that the mechanical application of section 50C without appreciating these circumstances was unjustified. 7.5 The appellant also submitted that in terms of judicial precedents, valuation must reflect all existing encumbrances and restrictions. It was further urged that the provisions of section 50C could not be invoked without reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). Though a reference was made to the DVO on 14.01.2025, the assessment was completed on 10.03.2025 without awaiting the report, which, according to the appellant, deprived it of its statutory right to challenge the stamp duty valuation. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. 7.6 It was further argued that the Assessing Officer erred in computing the entire stamp duty valuation as capital gains without allowing for deduction towards cost of acquisition, contrary to the scheme of computation e of computation envisaged under the Act. 7.7 I have given careful consideration to these submissions. The record confirms that the Assessing Officer did, in fact, make a reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) of the Act on 14.01.2025. This satisfies the statutory safeguard afforded to an appellant to contest stamp duty valuation. However, the assessment was governed by limitation and had to be completed within the statutory time frame, irrespective of whether the DVO's report had been received. The Assessing Officer, therefore, had no option but to proceed on the basis of the material available and adopt the stamp duty valuation, as mandated under section 50C. In this context, no procedural lapse can be attributed to the Assessing Officer. 7.8 In light of the above discussion, the contentions advanced by the appellant do not merit acceptance. The addition made is accordingly upheld, and this ground of appeal is dismissed. It is, however, pertinent to note that section 155(15) of the Act provides a safeguard to the assessees, whereby if a DVO's report is subsequently received, the Assessing Officer is empowered to amend the assessment order and re-compute capital gains by adopting the revised valuation. 7.9 Without prejudice to the foregoing discussion, it is pertinent to note that the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), vide order passed under section 55A of the Act in F. No. 16/CG/DVO/ ITD/KOL/ 2024-25/1803 dated 06.03.2025, furnished the valuation report in respect of the property in question. In the said report, the fair market value of the property was determined at Rs. 4,83,77,686/-. The Technical Unit of the Income Tax Department communicated the said report to the Faceless Assessing Officer vide letter dated 10.03.2025, DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/222/2024- 25/1074274100(1). However, by that date, the assessment order had already been completed by the Assessing Officer on 10.03.2025. (….The objections of the assessee have addressed by the DVO have been incorporated in para-7.10…..) 7.11 On perusal of the above DVO's order under section 55A, it is seen that the objections raised by the appellant, including written submissions dated 24.02.2025, were specifically examined and dealt with in a para-wise manner. Detailed rebuttals and reasoning have been provided by the DVO while arriving at the final valuation. Para-wise comments on the appellant's submissions have been annexed to the order by the DVO under section 55A Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. of the Act dated 06.03.2025, a copy of which was also furnished to the appellant. 7.12 The DVO categorically rejected the comparable sale instances relied upon by the appellant. It was specifically noted that the registered sale deed of the subject property itself records that the property was free from encumbrances and, therefore, could not be treated as tenancy-protected. The DVO also observed that the appellant's submissions were largely speculative in nature and unsupported by evidence, and thus could not be accepted for valuation purposes. Consequently, the plea that the sale consideration reflected commercial fairness is not acceptable. 7.13 Further, a perusal of the assessment as well as appellate records indicates that despite being granted sufficient opportunities, the appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence regarding the initial cost of acquisition of the property. Even during appellate proceedings, no such evidence has been placed on record. Mere assertions without supporting documents cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the Long-Term Capital Gain by adopting the deemed sale consideration stands justified. 7.14 The case laws relied upon by the appellant does not support its case. Those judicial precedents primarily emphasize the requirement of reference to the DVO in cases where the assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has, in fact, referred the matter to the DVO, and the valuation report has since been received. The DVO has determined the fair market value at Rs. 4,83,77,686/- after duly considering and rejecting the appellant's contentions and objections. Accordingly, the ratio of the cited cases does not advance the appellant's position. 7.15 In view of the above factual position and legal analysis, I find no merit in the arguments advanced by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 50C, and the appellant's objections have already been comprehensively addressed in the DVO's report under section 55A. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the adoption of Rs. 4,83,77,686/- as the full value of consideration for the purpose of computing Long-Term Capital Gains. Accordingly. Ground No. 1 raised by the appellant is dismissed. 7.16 Ground No. 2: The appellant has raised a ground challenging the alleged addition of Rs. 64,710/- on account of interest income, contending that the said income had already been disclosed in the return of income as well as reflected in the financial statements of the trust. 7.17 On verification that no such addition was, in fact, made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order. Further, during the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has neither pressed this ground nor advanced any specific arguments in support thereof. In these circumstances, the ground is rendered infructuous and stands dismissed. of the assessment records, it is 8. In light of the detailed findings recorded above, all the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted during the course of the hearing that the Trust had sold a property for ₹55 Lakh and the value of the property as per the Stamp Valuation Authority was ₹4,83,77,686/-. The Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The building was in a very bad condition and was occupied by unauthorized tenants. He stated that the DVO did not come and came afterwards and capital gains was charged at the stamp duty value without deduction of the cost of acquisition. The valuation report was received after the assessment order was passed but has been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of appeal. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee also filed comparable sale deeds but the order was confirmed after making the reference to the DVO. 6. It was pointed out by the Ld. DR that the Ld. AO had taken the fair market value of the property and not the value as per the circle rate. 7. The Ld. AR further stated that the capital gains had been charged without deduction of the cost of acquisition and the building was more than 125 years old. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded to the to the Ld. AO so that proper opportunity of being heard may be allowed. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand, stated that the DVO had found the fair market value on the basis of which the property was valued and not on the basis of the circle rate applied. The assessee had filed two sale deeds in support of the rate. Our attention was drawn to page 44 of the paper book filed which is the DVO’s valuation on the basis of the fair market value. The Trust was registered as a Private Limited Trust u/s 25 of the Companies Act. Subsequent to the conclusion of the hearing, the assessee also filed a written submission containing the synopsis of the arguments, the relevant extract from which is as under: “(10) The appellant submits that the process of determination of the FMV by the DVO had not been correct because of several defects which had been as under: (a) The DVO purportedly based his valuation exclusively on two sale instances recorded in Deed Nos. I-190202374/2018 and I- 190202375/2018, both dated 30.06.2018. Despite repeated requests, the DVO did not furnish certified copies or details of the said sale deeds, nor any supporting working or data, and proceeded to finalise his valuation order by merely mirroring the figure proposed in the notice. (b) The appellant, on its own, obtained certified copies of the said deeds from the website of the Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue and discovered that the actual sale considerations recorded therein were significantly lower than the consideration received by the appellant, as set out below. Table 1: Comparison of sale instances with appellant's property Instance Area (decimal) Built- up (sq ft) Sale Consideration Rate per decimal Variance Assessee’s Property 6.2265 2,280 ₹55,00,000 ₹8,83,321 - Deed I-190202374/2018 (Instance 1) used in Ld. DVO’s Valuation 6.3525 620 ₹12,50,000 ₹1,96,773 78% lower than assessee’s Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. Deed I- 190202375/2018 (Instance 2) used in Ld. DVO’s Valuation 3-2129 200 ₹4,50,000 ₹1,40,060 84% lower than assessee’s (c) Thus, on an actual transaction basis, the appellant's realized rate per decimal (₹8,83,321) had been far higher than the rates in both comparable instances (₹1,96,773 and ₹1,40,060), which were 78% and 84% lower respectively. (d) Instead of relying on these actual market transaction values, the DVO chose to adopt the stamp duty values of the comparable properties as the basis of valuation, and then applied those notional figures to the appellant's property. (e) The above approach of the DVO was fundamentally flawed in the case of the appellant because: (i) The very reason for reference to the DVO was that the appellant had challenged the correctness and applicability of the stamp duty value in its own case. (ii) In such a scenario, an independent valuation was expected on the basis of real market evidence and actual sale prices, not on the basis of other stamp duty valuations, which were themselves challenged figures. (iii) By using stamp duty values of other properties, the DVO simply substituted one set of stamp value figures with another, without conducting a genuine market-based comparison. (f) The Assessing Officer replaced actual consideration with stamp value; when that stamp duty value was challenged, the DVO again uses stamp values (of other properties) to justify another stamp value, rather than examining actual market data. This process of the DVO defeated the whole purpose of section 50C(2) and the reference to the Valuation Officer. (g) The two sale instances relied upon by the DVO, when seen on the basis of actual sale consideration, clearly showed that properties in the same area were transacting at far lower rates per decimal than the appellant's property. The appellant's transaction at ₹55,00,000 for 6.2265 decimals with a 2,280 sq. ft. dilapidated structure was, in fact, at a higher per- decimal rate than both alleged comparables. (h) Additionally, it was undisputed that the property had not been a free, vacant property; it was fully occupied by tenants and the property was transferred to the buyer along with the liability of such tenancy/occupancy. The existence of tenants and the encumbrance of tenancy rights had been Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. clearly recorded in the sale deed and were reflected in the appellant's paper book at pages 62, 63 and in the property schedule at page 67. (i) Any prudent purchaser in the open market would substantially discount the price of a tenanted, encumbered, dilapidated property with unauthorized occupants, as compared to a free, vacant, and readily developable parcel of land. The DVO completely failed to factor in these crucial aspects. (j) The appellant had specifically requested the DVO to furnish copies of the sale deeds and underlying data of the two comparable instances relied upon. However, the DVO did not supply the said documents, depriving the appellant of an effective opportunity to rebut or distinguish those comparables, and proceeded to finalize the valuation order. (k) Only by independent efforts did the appellant subsequently could obtain certified copies of these deeds from the office/website of the Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue, revealing the discrepancy between actual sale values and stamp duty values. Copies of both of these Deeds were submitted through the Paper Book (Pages 96 to 306). (1) This conduct of the DVO amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was denied full particulars of the material proposed to be used against it and was thus not afforded a fair and meaningful opportunity to contest the valuation methodology. (m) Section 50C(2) envisages that where the assessee disputes the correctness of the stamp duty value, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer for determination of fair market value. The legislative intent is that the Valuation Officer conducts an independent and objective valuation exercise based on relevant market material, including actual sale instances, physical condition, encumbrances, and other relevant factors. (n) In the appellant’s case, however, the DVO did not undertake a genuine independent valuation, simply: (i) Identified two sale instances; (ii) Ignored their actual sale considerations; and (iii) Adopted their stamp duty values as the basis for determining the value of the appellant's property. (o) When the appellant’s very grievance was that stamp duty valuation did not represent the open market value, a valuation process that relied on other stamp duty valuations instead of real transaction values was self- contradictory and rendered the statutory remedy illusory. This approach not Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. only caused grave and unjustified hardship to the appellant, but also defeated the object of the statutory scheme of section 50C and reference to the DVO, thereby vitiating the impugned valuation report. (11) While making the assessment the AO considered the entire Stamp Duty Value as the Capital Gain without making any Deduction towards the Cost of Acquisition. The appellant submits that the Fair Market Value as on 01/04/2001 should have been considered as the Cost of Acquisition. In the circumstance, the appellant prays before the Hon’ble Members that for following the principles of natural justice, the appellant may kindly be given a chance to present its case appropriately before the Assessing Officer, by way of kindly restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction as may be deemed fit by the Hon’ble Members, in the matter of determination of Fair Market Value of the concerned Property and allowing deduction towards Cost of Acquisition.” 9. We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. The Ld. DR stated that the DVO had not valued the property on the basis of circle rate and had adopted the market rate as appearing at pages 43 to 45 of the paper book, as per Annexure-I, II and III extracted as under: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. 10. The objections of the assessee have also been incorporated in Annexure-A to the DVO’s report which are also reproduced as under: “1. Incorrect area considered in the sales instances used for valuation. Assessee failed to appreciate that the area of land adopted in comparable sale instances (2Nos.) strictly pertains to its use type i.e. Semi Commercial whereas they have stressed that the area of Bastu land (5.20667) decimal, 2.484 decimal Bastu and 0.258 decimal of Commercial use type should also have been included. Pertinent to mention that unit rate derived in NS-6 in strictly in accordance with sale price divided area of semi commercial plots of land. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 13 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. Assessee had failed to note that market value ad 1.146 decimal area plot is Rs. 96,33.348/- and for 0.461 decimal area of plot is Rs. 48,40,757/- The market rate of 5.207 decimal Bastu nature plot is Rs.2,18,86,966/- and for 2.484 decimal Bastu nature it is Rs. 1,30,53185/- for 0.268 decimal Commercial use plot the market value is Rs. 42,26,631/-.Thus it can be been that assessee averment of adopting total area inclusive of Bastu & Commercial type plot of land and dividing market value of semi commercial is bogus primarily due to type of use of land and importantly by excluding market value of commercial & Bastu land In view of above this does not call for change in rate in NS-6. 2. Illogical Disparity between the two sale instances. The comparable sale instances adopted are as per the information received from ADSR and reflect correct value. There is no disparity in it. 3. The property is tenancy-protected, significantly reducing its market rate. The Sale deed explicitly mentions that the property is free from all encumbrances, and also purchaser has the right to collect rent therefore willfully purchaser entered into sale deed. This cannot be termed as tenancy protected. The sale deed is of 09/03/2019 whereas alleged legal notice is det 20/11/2019 which classifies it non-est. The alleged legal notice is not a notice at all in fact it is a request before appropriate authority to allow for depositing rent as the owner has refused to accept the same. 4. Structure valuation overlooks Demolition Order. Alleged notice for demolition dt. 28/02/2015 is not addressed to owner specifically moreover it mention to demolish the dilapidated portion. It is not understood as to what action owner took after receipt of the alleged notice and assessee silence on this account makes his submission meritless. As on date of inspection the building still exists. 5. Development Restriction and Government Acquisition Uncertainly The averment of restriction of digging pile foundation for tall buildings are without any documentary evidence and is based on pure conjecture. Allocation of space to tenants is again a presumption because firstly assessee has failed to prove existence of legal tenants by way of rent agreements etc and secondly the intent of the buyer as on date of sale i.e. dt. 24.04.2019. Similarly guess has been made for compared property higher construction. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 14 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. The alleged multiple notices for compulsory acquisition of year 2011, 2012 and 2013 have no bearing because the missing period till date of sale does not exhibit as to what happened to there notices and what action was taken by the owner on there notices. In view of above it is established that assessee averments are based on pure guess work and needs no consideration as to effect the valuation of the property. 6. Independent valuation report confirms lower market value. Comments on valuer report is separately dealt in Annx-B. 7. Sanction plan confirms limited Development potential. Again the guess work has been resorted by the assessee that heavy construction is not allowed like G+8 or higher storied building, less FSI utilization, allocation of share to tenants. Assessee being a seller speaks on behalf of purchaser which is imprudent. The intent of purchaser is not established and at the time of sale/ purchase both parties were aware of local byelaws. In view of above it can be seen that the very foundation approach is defective and thus value derived by the valuer has no meaning. 8. Incorrect Valuation Conclusion. The conclusion drawn by the assessee of per decimal value of Rs. 15,16,463/- and Rs. 15,06,653/- is as per their submission made under para 1 and the same stands nullified in view of the comments of the undersigned therein. 9. Request for Certified copies of the sale Deeds for valuation. This office does not provide certified copies to the assessee of the sale deeds used in the comparable sale instances primarily due to the fact that data is only received from ADSR office and secondly assessee himself can approach appropriate authority for the same. Conclusion and Request for Reconsideration. In view of above there seems no necessity of making any modification in the NS-6 issued vide letter No. 16/CG/DVO/ITD/KOL/2024-25/1648 dt. 12/02/2025. 11. The comments on valuation report dated 01.09.2017 submitted by the assessee are also extracted as under: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 15 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. “Comments on valuation report dt. 01/09/2017 submitted by the assessee:- The very basis of drawing unit rate of Rs. 75 to 125 lakh per Katha as per personal enquiry and as per various website is flawed and thus unacceptable. The method as provided in \"Guidelines for Valuation of Immovable Properties 2009\" should have been comparable sale instances which valuer did not comply. In view of above it can be seen that the very foundation approach is defective and thus value derived by the valuer has no meaning. 12. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, requested that adequate opportunity had been provided by the DVO to the assessee. Before making the valuation, the objections of the assessee had also been considered, therefore, he requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed. 13. We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. In the course of appeal as discussed above, the assessee also filed written submission stating that the DVO had adopted the rate which was on the basis of the circle rate whereas the sale consideration in the two deeds used in the DVO’s valuation report was giving a rate per decimal which was 78% and 84% lower than the rate adopted by the assessee and therefore, no addition was called for. Since the valuation report was not available before the Ld. AO, as it was received subsequent to the conclusion of the assessment order, the Bench was of the view that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the issue may be remanded to the Ld. AO, who shall consider the DVO’s report, the objections of the assessee, refer the objections of the assessee to the DVO for his comments and thereafter, pass a speaking order as per law after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. While calculating the capital gains, the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 16 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. AO is also directed to allow the cost of acquisition as per law on the basis of the evidence to be filed by the assessee, if any, as the property is very old and the cost of acquisition has not been allowed while computing the capital gains. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 26.03.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 17 ITA No.: 2409/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Prabartak Trust. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Prabartak Trust, 61, Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700012. 2. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches 8Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "