BANESWAR TUDU,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 381/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 March 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a reference under Section 50C(2) of the Act is mandatory, even if not raised by the taxpayer. Since no such reference was made, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a capital asset for Rs. 2,06,64,000, while the stamp duty value was Rs. 3,09,09,600. Both lower authorities invoked Section 50C of the Act to add the difference as long-term capital gains.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities correctly invoked Section 50C without making a mandatory reference under Section 50C(2) for determining the full value of consideration.

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 BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 03.03.2020Pronounced: 03.03.2020

Date of hearing 03.03.2020 Date of pronouncement 03.03.2020 O R D E R S. S. Godara(Oral): This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur dated 30.08.2018 passed in case no.530/JSR/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset with the able assistance of learned departmental representative that both the lower authorities have invoked section 50C of the Act for adding long-term capital gains amounting to Rs.3.80 crores in assessee’s hands. There is no dispute that the actual sale price of the capital asset(s) sold is Rs.2,06,64,000/- as against stamp price of Rs.3,09,09,600/-; respectively. I do not find any reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act to have been made either by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Hon’ble Calcutta high court’s decision in CIT vs. Sunil Kr. Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83(Cal) holds that such a reference is very much mandatory even if the taxpayer does not raise any plea to this effect. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s foregoing sole grievance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. It shall be very much open for the assessee

Baneswar Tudu to plead his before the Assessing Officer for factual and legal verification including application of section 50C in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 03.03.2020.

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →