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

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.

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.

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.