MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-2(1), RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 343/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 July 2020AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) before adopting the stamp valuation rate. This omission renders the adoption of the fair market value invalid.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer invoked Section 50C to adopt a higher stamp valuation rate for property, leading to an addition of long-term capital gains. The assessee appealed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer correctly invoked Section 50C without referring the matter to the DVO for valuation. The mandatory nature of the reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) was questioned.

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, RANCHI ‘E-COURT’AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara, JM & Dr. A.L. Saini, AM

आदेश /O R D E R Per S. S. Godara(Oral): This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jharkhand’s order dated 30.08.2018 passed in case No.CIT(A),Ranchi/10293/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file persued. 2. We notice at the outset that the sole substantive issue raised in the instant appeal is that of section 50C having been invoked by the Assessing Officer for adopting stamp valuation rate of Rs.53,96,040/- resulting in long-term capital gains addition of Rs.53,34,419/-; during the course of assessment as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. Learned departmental representative fails to rebut the clinching fact that neither Mohan Prasad Gupta Page 2 of the lower authorities had made section 50C(2) statutory reference to the DVO before adopting the impugned fair market value. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s judgment in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2016) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that such a reference is very much mandatory made even if the assessee does not raise any plea before the lower authorities. We therefore restore the assessee’s sole grievance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication after making section 50C(2) reference to the DVO.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 14/07/2020.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →