ANITA SHARMA,FARIDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3094/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 August 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities failed to refer the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as mandated by Section 50C(2). The AO is directed to refer the valuation to the DVO and proceed accordingly after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an immovable property in AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 7,09,03,000/- as taxable short-term capital gains. The assessee contended the sale consideration was Rs. 70,93,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred by not referring the property valuation to the DVO as required by Section 50C(2) before taxing the capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C(2),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3094/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anita Sharma, Vs. NFAC, H. No. 1385, Sector -17, New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana PAN: AVOPS1974J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Akash Deepak, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.06.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085588232(1), dated 04.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. I notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellate herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action adding short-term capital gains in her

ITA No.3094/Del/2026

hands to the tune of Rs.30,80,500/-; in assessment order dated 30.03.2022 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed the instant appeal before us. 3. I now advert to the basic relevant facts of the case; the AO has observed that the assessee had sold an immovable property for sale consideration of Rs.7,09,03,000/- in the relevant assessment year 2013-14, holding the entire sale consideration as taxable. However, the assessee has submitted that she had sold an immovable property on 27.08.2012 having address Flat No. 232, 3rd Floor, Shivkala Luxury Apartment-II, Plot No. D-19, Sector-51, Noida, UP, having stamp value of Rs.70,93,000/- and not Rs.7,09,03,000/-. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that going by section 50C(2) of the Act, both the learned lower authorities had nowhere made any statutory reference to the DVO which has already been held as mandatory. I thus direct the learned Assessing Officer to first refer the instant valuation to the DVO and then proceed as per law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All other remaining issues herein stand rendered academic.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3094/Del/2026

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 03.08.2026 RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 50C(2)

All 293 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →