SHRI BANEY SINGH GURJAR BYEPASS ROAD, MANPUR, GANGAPUR CITY, DISTT- SAWAI MADHOPUR,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, SAWAI MADHOPUR, SAWAI MADHOPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessees and decide the appeals on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessees sold agricultural land, and the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened assessments based on stamp duty valuations under Section 50C. The AO made additions without considering the cost of acquisition or other deductions, as the assessees did not appear before the AO or the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions based on stamp duty value without considering the cost of acquisition and other deductions, and whether the assessees were denied a proper opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 970/JP/2019
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
to 972/JP/2019 Shri Shadhu Lal Gurjar vs. ITO lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 09/07/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/07/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.
These three appeals by related assessees are directed against three separate orders of ld. CIT(A), Kota all dated 25.03.2019 for the assessment year 2011-12. Due to prevailing COVId-19 pandemic condition the hearing of the appeal is concluded through video conference. The assessees have raised common grounds in these appeals except quantum of addition on account of long term capital gain by invoking provisions of Section 50C of the IT Act. The ground raised in are as under:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not giving an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of stamp duty value as capital gain without considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee case and causing undue hardship on assessee.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming AO addition of entire DLC value of Rs. 12,19,680/- as income of long term capital gain without considering cost of purchase and its indexation.”
to 972/JP/2019 Shri Shadhu Lal Gurjar vs. ITO
None has appeared on behalf of the assessees despite notice sent to the assessee through e-mail. It transpired from the record that even the assessees did not appear either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A) and consequently the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) have passed ex- parte orders. Hence, we proposed to hear and disposed off of these three appeal ex-parte by this composite order.
We have heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. In these three appeals the assessees have sold agricultural land for the consideration shown in the sale deed however, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice U/s 148 of the Act to assess the long term capital gain based on the valuation adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority and thereby invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the IT Act. We further note that the Assessing Officer has assessed the entire sale consideration which is deemed full value consideration U/s 50C of the Act and therefore, the AO has not allowed any deduction on account of cost of acquisition or other deductions U/s 48 of the Act due to the reasons that none has appeared on behalf of the assessee during the assessment. Thus, it is apparent that the AO has not conducted any enquiry to ascertain the cost of acquisition or index cost of acquisition of the land in question and further, the date to 972/JP/2019 Shri Shadhu Lal Gurjar vs. ITO and mode of acquisition of the land in question by the assessees and thereby the fair market value, if any as on 01.04.1981 or 01.04.1991 etc. The assessees challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) however, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned ex-parte orders for want of attendance on behalf of the assessee. There is no dispute that the assessees are not attending the proceedings either before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A)or even before this Tribunal however, it is duty of the AO to assess the correct income of the assessee. Therefore, when the assessment order itself manifest that the AO has assessed the entire sale consideration and that too the deemed full value consideration U/s 50C of the Act without allowing any deduction on account of cost of acquisition and other deductions U/s 48 of the Act then this matter requires fresh consideration. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside these three appeals to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then decide the matters on merits. to 972/JP/2019 Shri Shadhu Lal Gurjar vs. ITO In the result, all three appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/07/2020. Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10/07/2020. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- 1. Shri Shadhu Lal Gurjar, 2. Shri Baney Singh Gurjar 3. Shri Gajanand Gurjar, All Sawai Madhopur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2, Sawai Madhopur ITO, Ward-3, Sawai Madhopur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 970 to 972/JP/2019} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026