MEENA DEVI,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) by automatically adopting the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C is beyond the scope of prima facie adjustments. Such a valuation is subject to challenge and cannot be a basis for an automatic adjustment.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold an immovable property and reported the sale consideration in their return. The processing officer adjusted the capital gains by using the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C instead of the actual sale consideration.
What were the issues?
Whether an adjustment based on Section 50C valuation is permissible under Section 143(1)(a) without considering the assessee's dispute of the valuation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘VNS‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 31/08/2022 passed by NFAC Delhi in relation to the rectification u/s.154 made in the intimation u/s.143(1)(a). 2. The brief facts are that assessee had sold immovable property and the details of the same were duly shown in the computation of income under the head long term capital gain in the return of income filed. The return filed on 31/08/2019 was 2 Meena Devi processed u/s. 143(1), wherein adjustment was made by taking the value of sale consideration as per Section 50C for computation of the capital gain instead of sale consideration shown by the assessee. Thereafter, assessee filed an application u/s.154 and in the rectification of intimation u/s.143(1) r.w.s. 154 on 19/01/2021, the same was not considered and the original processing order was retained.
Before the ld. CIT (A) it was challenged that taking the sale consideration as per the stamp valuation authority u/s.50C is beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a) and there is no such provision mentioned in provision (i) to (vi) to make such an adjustment. Further, it was contended that the assessee had disputed the valuation u/s.50C before the ld. AO in the petition for rectification u/s. 154, however, same has not been accepted. However, the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition on the ground that the provision of Section 50C is clear that the value has to be taken as per the stamp valuation authority and therefore, the ld. AO has rightly made the adjustment.
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the adjustment has been made on the ground that sale consideration shown by the assessee should be in accordance with the deeming provision of Section 50C wherein the value has to be taken as per the rate decided by the stamp valuation authority. First of all the scope of adjustment u/s. 143(1) has to fall within the primafacie adjustment as elaborated in clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 143(1)(a). This kind of 3 Meena Devi adjustment does not fall in any of the clauses. Simply because, assessee had shown the actual sale consideration as per sale deed and not as per the stamp valuation, that does not tantamount to arithmetical error or incorrect claim just because the sale consideration shown is slightly less than the value assessed by the stamp valuation authority in terms of Section 50C. Section 50C(2) itself provides that if the assessee has challenged or disputed the rate adopted by the stamp valuation authority, then the matter has to be referred to the valuation officer to determine the correct value, which assessee did in its rectification application u/s 154. All this process of automatic adopting the stamp valuation figure of sale consideration u/s 50C is beyond the scope of prima facie adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a) as it is neither arithmetical error nor incorrect claim. Because the sale consideration received as a result of transfer of a capital asset the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority can be subject matter of challenge and such a deeming provision cannot be subject matter of prima facie adjustment while computing the total income or loss. If the AO is not satisfied with such a claim then he has to give opportunity to the assessee and issue notice u/s 143(2). Accordingly, such an adjustment made by the AO/ CPC by adopting the sale consideration as per section 50C is unwarranted and beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a) and therefore, such kind of adjustment is deleted. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 16th October, 2023.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026