MOHAMMED HAJI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1216/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 April 2021AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if the assessee does not request it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the addition of long-term capital gains based on the Stamp Duty Valuation (Section 50C). The lower authorities did not refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as required by Section 50C(2). The assessee did not appear before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was required to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) for determining the full value of consideration, irrespective of the assessee's request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 “A” : HYDERABAD

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

(Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 22-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2010-11 arises from the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad’s order dated 28-06-2019 passed in case No.4 /10329 / 17-18/ W-5(3), Hyd / CIT(A)-4 / Hyd / 19-20 in 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.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal challenge correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking Section 50C of the Act thereby adding long term capital gains on account of transfer of the relevant capital asset; in the course of assessment dt.31-10- 2017, as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order.

3.

Learned departmental representative fails to rebut the clinching fact at the outset itself that neither of the lower authority has made the statutory reference to the DVO u/s.50C(2) of the Act. He vehemently contended that no such request came from the taxpayer’s side. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant stand. Case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) holds that a Section 50C(2) reference to the DVO is mandatory in Sec.50C proceedings even if the assessee concerned does not raise any such prayer. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all factual as well as legal pleas in the consequential proceedings.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd April, 2021

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →