SRI SATYANARAYANA GOUD MALAKPETA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2101/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 January 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 the assessee does not request it. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the addition of long-term capital gains on the transfer of a capital asset. The lower authorities invoked Section 50C of the Act without making a statutory reference to the DVO.

What were the issues?

Whether the invoking of Section 50C without a mandatory reference to the DVO is valid.

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 “B” : HYDERABAD

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

BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sri Satyanarayana Goud Income Tax Officer, Malakpeta, Vs Ward-4(3), HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AGGPM4997E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of Hearing : 04-01-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06-01-2021 O R D E R PER BENCH :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2009-10 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 18-09-2017 passed in case No.0424/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2016-17/2017-18, in proceedings u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Case called twice. None appeared for assessee’s behest. Learned departmental representative 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 the alleged long term capital gain of Rs.84,68,886/- on account of the transfer of the capital asset in the course of assessment 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 authorities had 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. Hon'ble Kolkata high court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) holds that such a reference is mandatory 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 6th 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 →