RAM JI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR V. ACIT, HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

ITA 419/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Ram Ji Lal Meena, the appellant, contesting the assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-6(1), Jaipur, for the assessment year 2008-09. The primary contention revolves around the procedural validity of the notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment under Section 144. The appellant argued that the notices were invalid as they were not issued with the necessary sanction under Section 151, rendering the assessment void ab initio. Additionally, the appellant challenged the adoption of the Stamp Valuation Authority's figure for property valuation without a proper report from the DVO, as previously directed by the ITAT. The ITAT noted the repeated non-compliance with its directions and the undue harassment caused to the appellant, leading to the decision to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment following the proper procedural requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782243 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 306/JP/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Value adopted by valuation officer
• Section: 144; 142(1); 50C

Judgement Text

"vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 419/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Ram Ji Lal Meena FA-20, Siddharth Nagar, Malviya Nagar Jaipur 302 017 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward -6 (1) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOOPL 6275 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 10.03.2025 for the assessment year 2008-09 raising therein following grounds of appeal. 1. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating and completing the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3)/254/144(Set aside) without issuing a valid notice under Section 143(2)148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The absence of such notice vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, rendering the resultant order illegal and void ab initio, Further, the L.d. AO has not taken any sanction from the appropriate authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing any notice. The action of the Ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case. Relief may Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA NO. 419/JPR/2025 SHRI RAM JI LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction 2. Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal No. 1. the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has grossly erred in completing the assessment without complying with the explicit directions of the Hon'ble ITAT to obtain a valuation report from the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Despite the appellant's diligent compliance in providing all requisite information to both the DVO and the AO, no valuation was conducted. Instead, the AO arbitrarily adopted the Stamp Valuation Authority's figure without due consideration of the appellant's objections, thereby rendering the assessment procedurally defective and liable to be set aside 3. Without prejudice to the GOA No. 1 to 2, the Ld. AO's failure to adhere to the Hon'ble ITAT's explicit directions constitutes a deliberate act of non- compliance, amounting to contempt of the Hon'ble Bench's order. This willful defiance has resulted in repeated proceedings, causing undue harassment to the appellant. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Bench may impose suitable costs upon the Revenue for this contemptuous conduct. 4. Without prejudice to the GOA No. 1 to 3, that on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer (\"Ld. AO\") has growly erred in making an addition under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") without making a corresponding addition under Section 56(2)(vii) in the hands of the buyer, thereby violating the principles of consistency, equality, and fairness in taxation. The Ld. AO has further failed to appreciate that the impugned addition under Section 50C is not sustainable without corresponding adjustment on the buyer's side under Section 56(2)(vii), which is contrary to established judicial precedents recognizing that both parties to a transaction must be assessed consistently.’’ 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of the notice sent by the ITAT to last known address of the assessee. Hence, the Bench decides to dispose off the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by taking into consideration the written submission dated 23-06-2025 adduced by the ld. AR of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA NO. 419/JPR/2025 SHRI RAM JI LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 2.2 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that the ld.DR was directed on 23-06-2025 to produce the DVO’s report but it was not submitted. 2.3 We have heard the ld.DR and also taken into consideration the written submissions of the assessee dated 23-06-2025 as to the case of the assessee. In this case, it is noted that the assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act on 22-02-2016 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.43,80,845/-. The AO had computed the long term capital gain of Rs.41,80,805/- in the hands of the assesee and also added regular income of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is noted that the AO adopted stamp duty value as sales consideration following provisions of Section 50C at Rs.53,11,367/- and after allowing indexed cost of acquisition, calculated long term capital gain at Rs.41,8,805/-. In this case, it is noted that the assessee had filed appeal before ITAT and ITAT vide order dated 04-10-2017 (ITA No. 306/JP/2017) at para 7 of its order observed that the assessee has objected the valuation adopted by stamp valuation authority and requested to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to be decided de novo after obtaining approval from DVO. It is further noted that the Department following the order of ITAT referred the matter to Valuation Officer vide letter No. 1189 dated 10-10-2018. The AVO vide Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA NO. 419/JPR/2025 SHRI RAM JI LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR letter No. 307 dated 19-12-2018 had informed the Department that valuation is likely to be done after 31-12-2018 due to pending workload with him and short time available till limitation. Thus the AO noted that the appeal of the assessee is getting barred by limitation 31-12-2018, the AO had no option but to complete the assessment on the basis of the material available on record and assessed the long term capital gain at Rs.41,80,805/- by observing as under:- ‘’The assessee has not complied with notices u/s 142(1) issued by this office, it appears that due to non-cooperation by the assessee, the valuation officer also could not determine fair market value of the property on date of sale. In these, circumstances, stamp duty value i.e. 50C of Rs.53,11,367/- is adopted as full value of consideration and long term capital is assessed at4 Rs.41,80,805/- as assessed by AO. This order is subject to amendment on receipt of valuation report from the Departmental Valuation Officer.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. The Bench also noted that earlier it had ordered the AO (vide its order dated 4- 10-2017 in ITA No. 306/JP/2017) to decide the appeal de novo after obtaining valuation report from DVO. However, the ld. DR vide his letter dated 22-07-2025 informed that DVO report has been called from the AO which is still awaited. The Bench feels that more than 08 years have elapsed in getting the DVO report by the AO and the assessee is waiting for justice from the Department. It is a serious lapse on the part of the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA NO. 419/JPR/2025 SHRI RAM JI LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR Department. However, the matter is again restored to the file AO to decide it de novo after obtaining valuation report from DVO 2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28 / 10/2025 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Ram Ji Lal Meena, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -6(1), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 419/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "