JOGINDER LAL AHUJA,DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(5), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6765/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2026AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerned an addition of long-term capital gains of Rs. 18.25 lakhs. This addition was made by invoking Section 50C of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order invoking Section 50C was valid without a mandatory reference to the DVO. The failure to follow the statutory procedure under Section 50C(2) was the key issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’], Delhi’s, DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088544451(1) dated 21.04.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded e-parte.

2.

Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties in the instant appeal. Learned departmental representative invites the tribunal’a attention to the assessment order herein dated

ITA 6765/DEL/2026 JOGINDER LAL AHUJA 30.03.2022 invoking section 50C of the Act thereby adding the long term capital gains amounting to Rs. 18.25 lakhs in the assessee’s hands.

3.

That being the case, he could hardly dispute that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere made any statutory reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act which has been held mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). The assessee’s instant sole substantive ground is accordingly restored back to the learned Assessing Officer for afresh appropriate adjudication after making necessary reference to the DVO in very terms.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th August, 2026.

Sd/- SATBEER SINGH GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER New Delhi Dated: 22.09.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy to: JOGINDER LAL AHUJA, A-5B/121, SHANTI KUNJ, PASCHIM VIHAR, 1 NEW DELHI - 110063, DELHI, INDIA, NEW DELHI-110063, DELHI

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(5), DELHI, 2 CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →