KAREN JUDALINE GODFREY,AUSTRALIA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1, HYDERABAD

It transpires at the outset that this assessee’s instant appeals suffers from 347 days (ITA No.1697/H/19) and 454 days (248/H/20) delay stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond their control as per condonation

The assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeals challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making long term capital gain addition of Rs.66,86,575/- each, after invoking Section 50C of the Act, in the course of assessment and upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. Suffice to say, it is not in dispute that both the lower authorities have gone by the stamp rate of the capital asset transferred by the assessees’ at much lower value after invoking Section 50C of the Act.

Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that neither of the lower authority has made any statutory reference to the DVO u/s.50C(2) of the Act. He vehemently argued that no such reference prayer from assessee’s side came in the course of twin lower proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical argument. Hon'ble Calcutta high court decision Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) holds that Section 50(C)(2) reference to the DVO is mandatory even if the assessee concerned fails to agitate the same before departmental authorities.

Learned authorised representative at this stage stated during the course of hearing that the capital asset sold at the assessees’ behest in the relevant previous year also involved some title dispute and other distressing factors. We therefore restore this sole issue of long term capital gain addition back to the Assessing Officer for his appropriate adjudication after making reference to the DVO as per law. It is made clear that

These assessees’ twin appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.