2022 (1) TMI 535 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 154 - Capital gain computation - direction to adopt the value determined by the DVO instead of applying deeming provision under section 50C - HELD THAT - We find that the ITAT in the case of one of the joint-owners, viz. Shri Harik Suryakant Shah dismissed the appeal of the assessee qua challenge to order of the CIT(A) passed under section 250 but allowed appeal of the joint-owner, and set aside order of the CIT(A) passed under section 154 of the Act with direction to adopt the value determined by the DVO instead of applying deeming provision under section 50C of the Act. Tribunal, facts and issues involved in the present appeal being identical, observations and findings of the Tribunal in the case of co-owners 2021 (11) TMI 1016 - ITAT AHMEDABAD shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case on hand as well, more so when, the ld.DR has not pointed out any material difference in facts and circumstances. Therefore, we dispose of both appeals of the assessee with similar directions.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of CIT(A)-V, Baroda dated 19.8.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara dated 23.01.2019 under section 154 of the Act
- Assessment year 2009-10
- Addition under section 50C of the Act in respect of capital gain on transfer of immovable properties
- Application for condonation of delay
- Apparent error in the order of CIT(A) regarding valuation of property

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad were at the instance of the assessee against orders of the CIT(A)-V, Baroda and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara for the assessment year 2009-10. The issues revolved around the addition under section 50C of the Income Tax Act concerning capital gains on the transfer of immovable properties. The assessee sought consistency in decision-making based on a previous case involving a joint owner, where the Tribunal had allowed the appeal with directions to adopt the value determined by the DVO instead of the deeming provision under section 50C. The Tribunal examined the facts and issues, including the delay in filing the appeals, and concluded that the principles applied in the previous case should be applied in the present appeals as well, as there were no material differences highlighted by the Revenue.

In one of the appeals (ITA No.593/Ahd/2019), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to a significant delay in filing, despite the explanation provided by the assessee regarding waiting for the outcome of other co-owners' appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee to take proactive steps in their own case and did not find merit in the explanation for the delay. However, in another appeal (ITA No.592/Ahd/2019), the Tribunal found an apparent error in the order of the CIT(A) regarding the valuation of the property. The Tribunal noted that for complete justice, each co-owner should have been treated equally, and the valuation report from the DVO should have been considered. The Tribunal allowed the application under Section 154 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to rectify the error in the order dated 26.08.2013, achieving the same result for the assessee as in the case of other co-owners.

Based on the precedent set in the previous case involving joint owners and the consistent application of principles, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals of the present assessee with similar directions. The appeal in ITA No.594/Ahd/2019 was dismissed, while the appeal in ITA No.595/Ahd/2019 was allowed, aligning with the decisions made in the previous related cases.