Loading judgment…
Facts
This appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises from proceedings under Sections 147/144 of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities made an addition of Rs. 18,03,083/- to long term capital gain under Section 50C, based on the difference between the actual sale price and the stamp duty valuation.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act, as established by the *Sunil Kumar Aggarwal vs. CIT* judgment. Consequently, the issue of the Section 50C addition was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities erred in invoking Section 50C for long term capital gain addition without a mandatory reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 50C, 50C(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Date of Hearing: 21.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.04.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250-2024-25/1068693608(1) dated 13.09.2024, in proceedings u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It is noticed from the perusal of the case file that both the lower authorities have invoked section 50C addition of long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 18,03,083/- representing difference between the actual sale price of Rs. 18,25,500/- and stamp price thereof to the tune of Rs. 36,90,000/-; respectively, in the course of assessment framed on 13.01.2023 and upheld in the lower authorities discussion.
2 4. That being the case, the Revenue could have hardly dispute the clinching fact that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere made the reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act which has been held mandatory in view of Sunil Kumar Aggarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) in assessee’s favour, even if there is no objection coming from the taxpayer’s side. I accordingly, deem it proper to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the file of the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication in very terms.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/04/2025.