ATUL KUMAR AGARWAL,BEGUSARAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BEGUSARAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 94/PAT/2019Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 September 2020AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO under section 50C, even if the assessee did not raise an objection regarding stamp valuation. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was filed against an order under section 143(3). The appeal was heard ex parte as the assessee did not appear. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was obligated to refer the matter to the DVO under Section 50C, irrespective of the assessee's plea.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 50C

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, PATNA BENCH, “VIRTUAL HEARING” AT KOLKATA

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

Hearing: 17.09.2020Pronounced: 17.09.2020

ORDER Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arise against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-Bhaglpur’s order dated 15.12.2016, involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. Accordingly we dispose of the instant appeal ex parte after hearing the learned CIT-Senior-DR. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s petition explaining delay of 79 days on account of compilation of necessary records and communication gap etc., we hold that the same is neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond his control. The same stands condoned. The case is now taken up for hearing on merits.

3.

Coming to the merits of the case, we notice that neither of the lower authorities has made reference to the DVO u/s 50C of the Act before adding LTCG of ₹25,53,580/- in issue. The revenue’s case before us is that no such plea came from the assessee’s side in the course of assessment as well as in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in this technical argumentgs. Hon’ble Calcutta high Atul Kumar Agarwal, AY-2014-15 court’s in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that a respective mandatory even if the assessee fails to raise any objection about the correctness of the stamp valuation adopted at the time of registration of the capital asset. This issue is therefore restored back to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the same afresh as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. We order accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in open court on 17th September, 2020 at the time of hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A.L. Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) *JD/Dkp. Sr.P.S. िदनांकः- 17/09/2020 कोलकाता। आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Shri Atul Kumar Agarwal, Prop. M/s. Mangal Das Prahlad Das, Main Road, Near City Fashion, Begusarai-851101. 2. ��थ�/Respondent-ACIT, Circle-2 Begusarai 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु�/ Concerned CIT Bhagalpur 4.आयकरआयु�- अपील / CIT (A) Bhagalpur 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Patna 6. गाड�फाइल / Guard file.

/True Copy/ By order/आदेशसे,

Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पाटना ।

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →