SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,MAURANIPUR V. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

ITA 80/AGR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Surendra Kumar Agarwal, who appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2018-19 and 2020-21. The primary issue was the addition of long-term capital gains based on the difference between the circle value and the fair market value of the land sold. The Assessing Officer had initially added a significant amount to the assessee's income, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not adequately considered the DVO's valuation report and the assessee's objections, leading to the restoration of the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785137 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE; REVENUE; SHAILENDRA SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Fair market value; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2020-21 Surendra Kumar Agarwal, C/o Surendra Kumar Agarwal & Bros., B-24, Galla Mandi, Mauranipur (UP). Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi. PAN :AFQPA2033N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sanjeev Agarwal, CA Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.10.2025 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ITA No. 80/Agr/2025 has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2017- 18/10011331 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal. ITA Nos. 255 & 278/Agr/2025 have been filed by assessee against the same impugned order dated 11.03.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e passed in appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10166946 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all these appeals are almost similar, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 80/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under : ITA No. 80/Agr/2022 (A.Y. 2018-19): 3. The brief facts state that the assessee is an individual and doing business of food grains. He filed return of income for A.Y. 2018-19, declaring total income from business at Rs. 2,84,852/- and Rs.18,39,483/- as income from long term capital gains on the sale of property. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “sale consideration of property shown in ITR is less than the value as per stamp authority”. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, Assessing Officer determined the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the details filed by assessee, dismissed assessee’s appeal. 5. Appellant assessee has approached this Tribunal in second appeal on the following grounds : “1. The learned CIT (A) has erroneously upheld an addition of Rs. 96,32,000/-(Rupees Ninety-six lac thirty-two thousand only) and computed the long-term capital gain at Rs. 1,14,71,483/-on account of the difference between the circle value and the fair market value of the land. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the evidence and arguments submitted by the appellant. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO in respect of the long-term capital gain without discussing the valuation report submitted by the DVO and the objections raised by the Appellant. ………………..” 6. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee and learned Sr. DR for revenue. 7. The sum and substance of all the grounds raised under appeal is as to whether ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the aforesaid addition in respect of long-term capital gain without taking DVO’s valuation report and assessee’s objections to it into consideration ? Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e 8. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has not considered the valuation report submitted by the DVO and assessee’s objections in respect thereof filed on ITBA portal. Hence, the impugned order be set aside. 9. Learned DR has supported the impugned order. 10. The factum of valuation report submitted by the DVO has not been questioned by the revenue. Perusal of the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed by ld. CIT(Appeals) shows that the assessee made submissions before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment without considering the valuation report, which was pending for submission. We notice that the ld. CIT(Appeals), though mentioned this fact in para-5 of the impugned order in the form of assessee’s submissions, however, ignored the fact of valuation report from being considered before passing the impugned order. In such circumstances, we deem it just and proper to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for considering the valuation report submitted by DVO and assessee’s submissions thereon and pass order a fresh in accordance with law. We order accordingly. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 5 | P a g e ITA No. 255/Agr/2025 : 11. The facts and issue involved in this appeal is almost identical except that the assessment was completed without making any reference to the DVO, as stated in para 5 of the impugned order. Assessee’s objections in respect of the valuation also do not seem to have been considered by the first appellate authority. Hence, our finding recorded in this respect in ITA No. 80/Agr/2025, shall mutatis mutandis apply in this appeal too. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 278/Agr/2025: 12. This appeal is the duplication of ITA No. 255/Agr/2025. During the course of arguments, learned representative for assessee has orally prayed for withdrawal of this appeal. Assessee’s prayer is accordingly accepted and this appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. 13. In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 278/Agr/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.10.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "