VISHWANATH PRASAD VISHWKARMA,JAMSHEDPUR V. ITO WARD-1(4), JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 303/RAN/2016

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the valuation of a property sold by the assessee, Vishwanath Prasad Vishwakarma, a retired employee of Tata Steel Limited. The property, sold on July 27, 2012, was located in a commercial area and had a declared sale consideration of Rs. 3,20,00,000. The assessee adopted a fair market value of Rs. 25,49,000 as of April 1, 1981, based on a registered valuation report, while the AO adopted a significantly lower value of Rs. 5,00,000 using a comparative method. The Tribunal noted that both parties had adopted acceptable methods of valuation but emphasized that in cases of dispute, the valuation should be referred to the DVO, which had not been done in this instance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633617 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KHUBCHAND PANDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVASISSANNIGRAHI
• Keywords: Fair market value; Capital Gains; Valuation report

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORES/ AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vishwanath Prasad Vishwakarma 108, Rajiv Path, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A Jamshedpur dated 16.8.2026 i year2013-14. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.303/RAN/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vishwanath Prasad Vishwakarma 108, Rajiv Path, Dimna Road, Mango, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jamshedpur .ABQPV 7125 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Devasis Sannigrahi, CA Revenue by :Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr Date of hearing : 10/06/202 Date of Pronouncement :10/06/ O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A Jamshedpur dated 16.8.2026 in Appeal No. 36/JSR/2015-16f P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Ward Jamshedpur Respondent) Sannigrahi, CA hri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr DR 2025 /2025 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), 16for the assessment ITA No.303/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2-13-14 P a g e 2 | 4 2. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue and Shri Debasis Sannigrahi,ld AR appeared for the assessee. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee, a retired employees of Tata Steel Limited had sold the house property on 27.7.2012. It was the submission that the sale consideration of the property was Rs.3,20,00,000/-. It was the submission that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring long term capital gains. In the computation of long term capital gains, the assessee had adopted the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.25,49,000/-. It was the submission that the area of the property sold was 4320 sq. ft. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had adopted the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.5,00,000/-. It was the submission that the assessee had applied reverse calculation to arrive at the valuation as on 1.4.1981 and the Assessing Officer had applied a comparative method. It was the submission that the property sold by the assessee was in the commercial area, whereas the comparative case taken by the AO was nowhere near the property which was sold by the assessee. It was the further submission that when there is a dispute in the valuation of the fair market value of the property, what was required do be done was that the valuation of the property to be referred to Department Valuation Officer (DVO). It was the submission that this has not been done. It was the submission that as the assessee has already disclosed capital gains and has also given justifiable value for the valuation of the property ITA No.303/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2-13-14 P a g e 3 | 4 as per the Registered valuation report, the value as adopted by the assessee as on 1.4.1981 is liable to be accepted. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the Assessing Officer has adopted an acceptable method of valuation being comparative case valuation. It was the submission that the valuation as adopted by the AO was more appropriate and the same is liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee has given fair market value in respect of his property as on 1.4.1981. The Assessing Officer is disputing that valuation. The assessee and the AO have admittedly adopted the acceptable method of valuation. However, the Act requires that in the event of dispute in regard to valuation, the valuation is to be referred to the DVO. This has admittedly not been done. This being so, we are of the view that the addition as made by the AO by adopting the comparative case is not permissible. Consequently, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 10/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 10/06/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.303/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2-13-14 P a g e 4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellant : Vishwanath Prasad Vishwakarma 108, Rajiv Path, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur 2. The Respondent” ITO, Ward 1(4), Jamshedpur 3. The CIT(A)-Jamshedpur 4. Pr.CIT,Jamshedpur 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "