MANGAT RAI MALIK,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1449/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 September 2019AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as defective. The Valuation Officer's report indicated a difference of only 3.8% between the declared value and the estimated value.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a plot of land for Rs. 26 lacs, but the stamp duty was paid on Rs. 37.42 lacs. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 50C and made an addition of Rs. 11.42 lacs. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as defective.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as defective without considering the merits, and whether the addition under Section 50C was warranted given the minor difference in valuation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 12.09.2019Pronounced: 13.09.2019

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Noida dated 28.08.2018 pertaining to A. Y. 2010-11.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by treating it as a defective appeal. On merits the assessee claims that the addition made u/s. 50C of the Act on the basis of the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty should be deleted as the AVO has valued the plot and the difference in the value is less than 5%.

3.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration. The assessee sold plot of land at sector-46, Noida on 10.07.2009 for Rs.26 lacs. However, the stamp was paid on Rs.37.42 lacs.

4.

Invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The Assessing Officer adopted the total sale consideration at Rs.37.42 lacs and made the addition of Rs.11.42 lacs.

5.

The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee treating to be a defective appeal.

6.

Before me the counsel for the assessee stated that during the course of the assessment proceedings objection was raised to refer the valuation of the sold plot to the Valuation Officer. On such objection the Assessing Officer made a reference to the Valuation Officer, Meerut u/s. 50C (ii). Since the valuation report was not received and the assessment was getting barred limitation, the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition. It is the say of the counsel that a proper appeal was filed before the CIT(A) but for the reasons best known to the CIT(A) he dismissed the appeal as defective.

7.

Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.

8.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer at para-4 of his order has clearly mentioned that matter was referred to the Valuation Officer but since the assessment was getting barred by limitation he did not wait for the valuation officer’s report and completed the assessment.

9.

I find that the proper appeal was filed before the CIT(A) but the CIT(A) in his wisdom dismissed it as a defective appeal.

10.

Before me the valuation report of the Valuation Officer has been filed which clearly shows that the value estimated by him at Rs.27 lacs and the value declared by the assessee at Rs. 26 lacs has only a difference of Rs.1 lac which difference is about 3.8 percent.

11.

In the interest of justice and fair play I restore the matter to the files of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the valuation report of the Valuation Officer.

12.

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2019.

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →