Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.
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.
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.
This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd April, 2021