M DEEPA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1706/HYD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 January 2021AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to make a reference under Section 50C(2) even if the taxpayer does not raise objections. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared Rs. 71,16,000/- as the sale consideration for a capital asset. The lower authorities invoked Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, adopting the SRO guidance value of Rs. 2,07,55,000/- for addition. This was done without making a necessary statutory reference under Section 50C(2).

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer correctly invoked Section 50C without making the mandatory reference to the DVO as required by Section 50C(2) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 50C(2),Section 143(3),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 : BENCH “A” HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Hearing: 20/01/2021

For Assessee: Sri A. Srinivas, Adv. For Revenue: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, D.R. Date of Hearing : 20/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28 /01/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 arises from Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV [CIT(A) in short] Hyderabad’s order dated 27.08.2014 in case no.134/W-6(3)/CIT(A)-IV/13-14 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action making short term capital gains addition of Rs.1,19,90,000/- regarding transfer of her capital asset in issue. Suffice to say; learned departmental representative fails to dispute that both the lower AY : 2008-09 Smt. M. Deepa Reddy authorities have invoked sec.50C of the Act thereby adopting SRO guidance value of capital asset of Rs.2,07,55,000/- as against that declared Rs.71,16,000/-; respectively without making necessary statutory reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act. 2.1. Mr.Pandey at this stage vehemently contended that no such plea of DVO’s reference had come from assessee’s side during the course of scrutiny. We find no substance in the instant argument. Case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to make sec.50C’s reference even if the tax payer has not objection(s) in assessment proceedings. We therefore restore this sole substantive grievance back to the file of Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication. It is made clear that assessee shall be at liberty to raise any factual or legal pleadings as are available to her in consequential proceedings. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Pronounced in Open Court on 28th January, 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 →