MOHAMMED ZAHEERUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1288/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 October 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not referring the matter to the DVO for valuation as mandated by Section 50C(2) when requested by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration and DVO valuation.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold land and did not offer capital gains. The AO assessed LTCG based on SRO value as the assessee didn't comply with notices. The assessee later requested a DVO valuation, which the AO rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in rejecting the assessee's request for a DVO valuation under Section 50C(2) when computing capital gains on the sale of immovable property.

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, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AR
Hearing: 16/10/2019Pronounced: 18/10/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1288/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sri Mohammed Zaheeruddin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-14(4), PAN: AMXPM 9142 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya, AR Revenue by: Sri R.S. Arvindakshan, DR Date of hearing: 16/10/2019 Date of pronouncement: 18/10/2019 ORDER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad in appeal no. 10711/2018-19/B2/CIT(A)-6, dated 06/06/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 & U/s. 250(6) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

The assessee has raised three grounds in his appeal, however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not obtaining the valuation report from the DVO while confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had assessed LTCG of Rs. 16,47,800 in the hands of the assessee with respect to sale of his immovable property.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had sold his land and not offered capital gains. Subsequently, assessment was completed U/s. 144 of the Act on 31/3/2013 by adopting the fair market value as per the SRO since the assessee had not complied with the notice issued U/s. 142(1) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the ld. AO vide order dated 26/2/2016. On further appeal, the ITAT vide order dated 7/8/2017 remitted the entire matter to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Before the Ld. AO on the second occasion, the assessee requested for referring the matter to the Ld. DVO for valuing the property. However, the Ld. AO rejected the request of the assessee and thereafter computed the LTCG at Rs. 16,47,800/- invoking the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act.

4.

At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has erred by not referring the matter to the Ld. DVO for valuation of the property and hence it was pleaded that the matter remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO with directions to refer the valuation of the land to the Ld. DVO and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law. The Ld. DR vehemently opposed to the submission of the Ld. AR.

5.

I have heard the rival submission and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case it is apparent that the assessee during his second opportunity before the Ld. AO had requested

the Ld. AO for referring the matter to the Ld. DVO for obtaining the value of the land sold by him because, the Ld. AO had invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act. When the assessee had made such request, by virtue of section 50C(2) of the Act it is mandatory on the part of the Ld. AO to refer the valuation of the land sold by the assessee to the Ld. DVO. However, in the instant case, the Ld. AO has grossly failed to do so. Such irresponsible action of the Ld. AO is not appreciable. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) has remanded the matter to the file of Ld. AO with directions to refer the valuation of the land sold by the assessee to the Ld. DVO. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the Ld. CIT (A) do not have powers to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. AO, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration and with direction to refer the matter to the Ld. DVO for valuing the property sold by the assessee and thereafter compute the LTCG in the hands of the assessee in accordance with merit and law.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

Pronounced in the open Court on 18th October, 2019.

Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 18th October, 2019

OKK Copy to:- 1) Mohammed Zaheeruddin, 9-4-87/84, Owaisi Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(4), IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3) The CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-6, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) 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 →