LATE SMT.SUSHILA SHAH REP BY NIKHIL NANDAN C. SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

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 the alleged capital gains of Rs.11,76,540/- on account of transfer of the relevant capital asset; in the course of assessment, 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 authorities had made the statutory reference to the DVO u/s.50C(2) of the Act. The Revenue’s stand is that no such request came from the taxpayer’s side. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant stand. Hon'ble Calcutta high court’s decision Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) that a 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.