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

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.