2022 (3) TMI 1123 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - received information regarding the sale of property from DDIT (Inv.)-III, Surat, through ITO, Ward-1 as the assessee was identified as non-filer in the ITD system - HELD THAT - We have considered the submission of ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, the order of lower authorities and the statement of fact mentioned in Form 35 filed before ld. CIT(A). AO that made addition of long term capital gain on the basis of valuation report of DVO and held that the assessee has earned long term capital gain. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by taking view that DVO is a technical person and valued the property after taking considering various facts and circumstances of the case. Before us neither the assessee has come forward nor filed any submissions or any documentary evidence to substantiate the various grounds of appeal. In absence of any evidence we are unable to deviate from the order of lower authorities which we affirm. Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of reassessment under section 147 of the Act
Addition of long term capital gain
Opportunity of hearing and ex-parte order passed by AO
Consideration of additional ground raised by the appellant
Appreciation of facts by lower authorities

Validity of reassessment under section 147 of the Act:
The case involved a Non-resident Indian (NRI) whose case was reopened under section 147 of the Act due to information received regarding the sale of property. The Assessing Officer believed that the assessee earned capital gain which escaped assessment, leading to the issuance of a notice under section 148. The assessee filed a return of income declaring a lower income, leading to a re-assessment by the Assessing Officer. The dispute arose over the valuation of the property and the computation of capital gain.

Addition of long term capital gain:
The Assessing Officer made an addition of long term capital gain based on the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The assessee claimed a different market value for the property, but the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of capital gain based on the DVO's valuation. The Tribunal affirmed this decision as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their claims.

Opportunity of hearing and ex-parte order passed by AO:
The appellant raised concerns about not being granted an opportunity of hearing before the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal did not find any evidence or submissions from the appellant to support this claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on this issue.

Consideration of additional ground raised by the appellant:
The appellant contended that since no addition was made on the reason for reopening, other additions should not be sustained. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed this argument and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal did not find any new evidence or submissions to support this ground, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on this issue.

Appreciation of facts by lower authorities:
The appellant argued that the lower authorities did not properly appreciate the facts and submissions provided by the appellant, leading to a breach of natural justice. However, the Tribunal found no new evidence or submissions from the appellant to support this claim. As a result, the appeal was dismissed on this ground as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The decision was based on the lack of evidence or submissions from the appellant to substantiate their claims or challenge the valuation of the property for the computation of capital gain.