KAMLESH KONODIA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2112/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2021AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in not referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as mandated by Section 50C(2) of the Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was filed with a delay, which was condoned. The appeal concerned additions made to capital gains based on the market value of a property sold for a lower registered sale consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming capital gain additions without verifying details. Whether the lower authorities correctly applied Section 50C without referring to the DVO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 50C,Section 50C(2),Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2010-11 arises from the CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad’s order dated 24-07-2018 passed in appeal No.0371/2017-18/CIT(A)-5, involving proceedings u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Case called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It transpires at the outset that this assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 27 days delay stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond his control as per condonation petition/affidavit dt.20-02-2019. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore.

3.

The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

“1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order dismissing the appeal without giving any further opportunity of being heard after the specified date.

2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in relying upon the A.O’s order confirming the addition of Rs.15,61,609/- being the capital gain arrived by considering the market value of the property of Rs.30,56,000/- (assessee’s share being 50%), whereas the property was sold vide document no 286/2010 registered with SRO, Kukatpally for an amount of Rs.17,12,000/- (assessee’s share being 50% i.e., 8,56,000/-). The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) erred in confirming the total addition of capital gain without verifying the details.

3. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred by relying upon the A.O’s order for not considering the investment made in residential property, during the said year, for claiming the exemption u/s.54, from capital gains”.

4.

We notice at the outset with the able assistance from the Revenue’s side that both the learned authorities have proceeded to invoke Section 50C for making long term capital gain addition of Rs.25,20,247/- involving the assessee’s half share coming to Rs.12,60,124/-. There is no dispute qua the basic fact that the assessee had indeed transferred capital asset i.e., an area measuring 400 sq. yds., from plot No.14 and 28 sq. yds., from plot No.15; in the relevant previous year (situated in Fathe Nagar Village, Bala Nagar Mandal, Kukatpally, Hyderabad) vide sale document No.286/2010 for a consideration of Rs.17,12,000/- as against SRO price of Rs.30,56,000/-. And also that neither of the learned lower authorities made Section 50C(2) statutory reference to the DVO held to be mandatory as per hon'ble Calcutta high court’s decision Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal).

5.

Learned departmental representative’s only argument is that no such plea had been raised from the assessee’s side before the lower authorities.

6.

We find no merit in the instant argument since the same already stand declined in the foregoing judicial precedent. We accordingly accept the assessee’s twin substantive grievances for statistical purposes and direct the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh as per law in above terms.

7.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th May, 2021

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →