MRS BHARATIBEN BHAGWANDAS DAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD 3 SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 626/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 July 2026AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication solely on the applicability of Section 50C. The AO is directed to obtain a proper DVO report and provide it to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was reassessed due to the sale of an ancestral property. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered the stamp duty value under Section 50C to be higher than the declared value, despite a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) which yielded no report for nearly 10 years.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the AO's determination of capital gains under Section 50C without a DVO report and the assessee's contention regarding joint ownership and acceptance of similar returns from co-owners.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Khire
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai [Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2010-11 on 24.12.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 27.12.2016.

Findings and Analysis:

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the assessee had electronically filed return of income for AY 2010-11 on 15.12.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,83,920/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Jt. DIT (I&CI), Unit-1, Mumbai regarding the sale of an ancestral immovable property which was jointly owned by the assessee. As a result, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act

ITA No. 626/PUN/2026 dated 28.03.2016. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income which was originally filed. The assessee asked for the reasons. Accordingly, the reasons were provided on 29.04.2016 to the assessee. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act dated 30.06.2016 were duly served on the assessee. The assessee’s authorized representative appeared before the AO. In this case, it was noted by the AO that the value for the purpose of section 50C of the Act was more than the value shown by the assessee. The assessee during the proceedings filed a valuation report. However, the AO made a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) on 01.11.2016. Since, the assessment was getting time barred, and the DVO’s report was not received, the AO considered the section 50C valuation as appearing in the Agreement. Accordingly, the AO calculated the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.52,36,619/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted before the AO that the property was jointly owned with her brothers and brother’s return of income has been accepted without making any addition. This fact is recorded in para 8.2 of the assessment order.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition without waiting for DVO’s report. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that till date report of the DVO has not been received. The Ld. AR also submitted that they have made request to the AO to obtain DVO’s report but till date DVO’s report has not been received. The Ld. AR submitted that since the property was jointly owned and return of income of the assessee’s brothers has been accepted. Similarly, the assessee’s return of income should be accepted.

ITA No. 626/PUN/2026

5.

The Ld. DR vehemently objected to the contention of the Ld. AR and submitted that the return of income of the assessee’s brothers was not selected for scrutiny. Therefore, the assessee’s brothers cannot be compared with the assessee.

6.

Admittedly, in this case, reference was made to the DVO for valuation of the impugned property on 01.11.2016, it is almost 10 years but no report has been received from the DVO as submitted by the Ld. AR and Ld. DR. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the assessment order to the AO for de-novo adjudication only on the limited issue of applicability of section 50C of the Act. The AO shall properly obtain report from the DVO and provide a copy of report to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file necessary documents. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 21-07-2026 Ravi Kumar आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →