VANITA RAMESH SARODE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 301/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 June 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that proper notice was not served on the assessee at the first appellate stage. Considering the issue of Section 50C and the potential retrospective application of a Finance Act amendment, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee also raised an additional ground regarding the applicability of a Finance Act amendment to Section 50C for the assessment year under consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal was dismissed without proper opportunity of hearing and the applicability of a retrospective amendment to Section 50C for the relevant assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Ms. Anchal Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 09.06.2026Pronounced: 09.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 17/03/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

ITA No. 301/NAG/2025 (Vanita Ramesh Sarode) 2. On hearing both the sides, it comes up that the assessee has raised ground no. 4 that without giving proper opportunity of hearing, the appeal has been dismissed.

3.

Though the Ld. DR has relied on impugned orders, we find that at first appellate stage, the notices were sent on e– mail address, however, the same is not recorded. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee raises an additional ground that addition under Section 50C of the Act could not have been made as the deficiency between sale consideration and stamp value is within the tolerance band introduced by Finance Act of 2020 for which Ld. DR submits that the same is not applicable to the year under consideration and it is countered by Ld. Counsel for assessee submitting that there are judicial decisions holding the amendment to be retrospective in nature, that being the state of affairs. We consider it an appropriate case to restore the issue to the files of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to give afresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order afresh. 2

ITA No. 301/NAG/2025 (Vanita Ramesh Sarode) 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 09.06.2026 Sd/– Sd/– ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur: Dated: 09/06/2026 Z.U, P.S Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order

Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →