KRISHNA VENI BASUPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1892/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 April 2021AY 2009-103 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 not requested by the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 challenged the addition of capital gains based on Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities invoked Section 50C without making a mandatory reference to the DVO.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of capital gains under Section 50C is valid when the Assessing Officer failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 50C(2)

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 : 20-04-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 26-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2009-10 arises from the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s order dated 25-04-2018 passed in case No.0472 / CIT(A)-7 / 2016-17 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 capital gains of Rs.8,96,000/- on account of transfer of the alleged capital asset; in the course of assessment dt.29-12-2016 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 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 26th 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 →