ANUPAMA ASHOK KULKARNI,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(1), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order without considering the assessee's objections to the DVO's report. The Tribunal held that this was against the principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold an immovable property and did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings and adopted a higher sale consideration based on Section 50C, making an addition. The assessee objected to the valuation, and the AO referred the matter to the DVO.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's objections to the DVO's valuation report before confirming the assessment order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.10.2022 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Briefly, the facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual deriving income under the head ‘Capital Gains’. No voluntary income under the provisions of section 139 of the Act was filed by the appellant. However, the Assessing Officer, Ward 12(1), Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO') on receipt of information that the appellant sold an immovable property during the previous year relevant to the year under consideration for a consideration of Rs.98,34,000/- issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22.03.2019. In response to the said notice, the appellant filed return of income declaring income of Rs.1,62,680/-.
Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 18.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs.12,57,204/-. While doing so, the AO adopted the sale consideration of the property sold at Rs.98,34,000/- as against the apparent consideration of Rs.25,15,000/- invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act and accordingly computed the capital gains on the share of property and made addition of Rs.10,94,524/-. The appellant also objected the adoption of sale consideration of Rs.98,34,000/- and objected that the fair market value of the property does not exceed the apparent consideration and requested the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for determination of the fair market value. The AO had agreed to the request of the assessee to refer the matter to the DVO and since the DVO’s report was awaited, the AO had proceeded with the assessment as the assessment was getting barred by the limitation.
Being aggrieved with the above order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). During the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), the DVO’s report had been submitted. The appellant had objected to the method of valuation, adopted by the DVO before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) without considering the objections raised before him on the DVO’s report had merely confirmed the assessment order, which in my considered opinion is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of CIT(A) with a direction that he should consider the objections raised by the appellant on the method of valuation adopted by the DVO.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2023.
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 →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026