SMT. ARCHANA CHOWDHURY,WEST BENGAL vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 73/RAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 July 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice over technicalities. It also held that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value, which is mandatory.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with an 80-day delay, which the lower appellate authority refused to condone. The substantive issue involved an addition of ₹43,99,000/- based on the difference between sale consideration and stamp valuation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was valid without a mandatory reference to the DVO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, RANCHI BENCH “E” Court at KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

O R D E R PER BENCH (Oral):- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ranchi’s order dated 18.12.2018 passed in case No. CIT(A), Ranchi/10024/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

2.

With the able assistance of learned senior departmental representative, we notice at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge has declined to condone the delay of eighty days’ delay in filing stated to be Smt. Archana Chowdhury Vs. DCIT Cir-1, Ranchi Page 2 attributable serious illness and other medical reasons. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark judgment COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. Mst. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) held long back that all of technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We therefore are of the view that the assessee’s delay of eighty days’ in filing the lower appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of the foregoing medical illness only. The same is condoned.

3.

We now advert to merits. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action making u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of ₹43,99,000/- based on difference between the actual sale consideration of stamp valuation. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that neither of the lower authorities had made sec. 50C(2) reference to the DVO for ascertaining fair market value of the corresponding asset as it is applicable mutatis mutandis in sec.56(2)(vii)(b)(c) Proviso to this effect. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that such a reference is very much mandatory even if the taxpayer’s concerned does not raise an objection before the Assessing Officer. We adopt the very reasoning herein as well and restore the instant issue Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication as per law.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in open court at the close of hearing on Wednesday, 15th July, 2020 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद"य) ($या%यक सद"य) (Dr. A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member)

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →