IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.827/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Late Shri Ranjitsinh Bhawansinh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vaghela (Through L/h. Bharatsinh Ward-3, R. Vaghela), Gandhinagar

213, Sarpanch Vas, Sargasan Gandhinagar-382421 [PAN No.ANFPV3307B]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent Appellant by : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Respondent by: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2025

O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 08.03.2019 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66,77,877/- made towards computation of LTCG by adopting a different FMV as on 01/04/1981.

(2) That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in partly confirming the addition of Rs. 2,52,73,040/- made by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act.

(3) That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, the entire addition ought to have been deleted, as prayed for.

(4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.”

- 2–

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Late Shri Ranjitsinh B. Vaghela had filed his return of income on 30.03.2014, declaring long-term capital gains on sale of land situated at Sargasan. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the cost of acquisition claimed as on 01.04.1981, the claim of deduction under sections 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and the evidence produced regarding agricultural use and subsequent acquisition of agricultural lands. The matter of cost of acquisition was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. After considering the valuation report, the Assessing Officer adopted the rate of Rs.5 per sq. metre, computed long-term capital gain at Rs. 4,07,29,002/-, allowed only part deduction under section 54F and rejected the majority of the deduction claimed under section 54B except to the extent of the registered purchase value. The taxable long-term capital gain was therefore computed at Rs. 3,79,67,406/-.

4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and contended that the Assessing Officer erred in adopting the cost of acquisition at Rs. 5 per sq. meter and in denying proper deductions under sections 54B and 54F. The CIT(Appeals) examined the valuation report, the submissions of the assessee and the remand report of the Assessing Officer, and finally upheld the adoption of Rs.5 per sq. metre as cost of acquisition while partly allowing the deduction u/s 54B to the extent of the registered sale deed value of Rs.59,86,160/- and recomputing the deduction allowable under section 54F at Rs.29,00,637/-. The CIT(Appeals) accordingly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

- 3–

5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

6. When the matter came before us, the learned counsel for the assessee raised an Additional Legal Ground contending that the assessment order was passed in the name of a deceased person. It was brought to our notice that Late Shri Ranjitsinh B. Vaghela had expired on 02-10-2012, while the assessment order was passed nearly two and a half years thereafter, on 26-03- 2015. It was contended that a letter dated 26-02-2015 had been filed before the Assessing Officer informing him of the assessee’s demise and therefore the impugned assessment order passed in the name of the deceased assessee is void. Several judicial precedents were relied upon to contend that an order passed on a deceased person is unenforceable in law.

7. I