Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order confirming an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.50C of the Act, based on the difference between the sale value and stamp duty value of a property. The assessee claimed the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and that they were unaware of the proceedings, especially in the first year of e-proceedings, and requested an opportunity to present their case.
Held
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the AO when the orders were passed ex-parte due to lack of awareness of proceedings, and whether the matter should be referred to the Valuation Officer.
Sections Cited
50C, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
"ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं अ"पूण" गु!ा, लेखा सद" के सम%। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2012-13 Vanrajsinh D. Vaghela The ITO बनाम/ 1, Kum Kum Park Society Ward-3(2)(1) v/s. Nr.Somnath Society Ahmedabad – 380 015 Highway Road Sanand Ahmedabad – 382 110 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ABRPV 5389 B (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Parin S. Shah, AR Revenue by : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 16/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 25/02/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-2013. Vanrajsinh D. Vaghela vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13
The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs.26,24,684/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.50C of the Act on account of difference in the sale value of the property as mentioned in the sale-deed as compared to the stamp duty value/Collector rate in respect of property sold by the assessee.
The Ld. AR for the assessee, at the outset, has brought our attention to the impugned orders of both the lower authorities to submit that the same are ex-parte orders. The Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee is a villager and was not aware the nitty-gritties of the income-tax proceedings. He has further submitted that this was the first year of the e-proceedings. He has further submitted that the assessee was not served physically by the AO. He, therefore, submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO as the assessee disputes the stamp duty value and wants the matter to be referred to the Valuation Officer of the Department.
The Ld.DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.
Considering the rival submissions, in our view, interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the AO. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for assessment afresh on this issue. The AO will duly consider the application of the assessee, if any, moved for obtaining the Valuation Report of the Departmental Valuation Officer to ascertain the value of the property during the relevant period. Vanrajsinh D. Vaghela vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13