LAKSHMI RAMACHANDRAN,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 29, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 576/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 February 2021AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the assessees' own valuation, which was lower than the stamp duty value, could not be interfered with as it was part of their return and not an issue raised before the AO. The appellate authority cannot assume jurisdiction over matters not forming part of the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessees, sisters, jointly sold a property for Rs. 52 lakh. They obtained a valuation of Rs. 65.22 lakh and offered capital gains based on this. The registering authority had valued the property at Rs. 87.55 lakh.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the capital gains should be computed based on the assessee's own valuation or the stamp duty value, and the scope of appellate review when the valuation was self-declared and not disputed before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

आदेश /O R D E R The captioned appeals have been preferred by both the assessees against the separate orders dated 21.09.2020 & 24.09.2020 of the Commissioner of Income-tax -577/Kol/20 A.Y 2015-16 Lakshmis Ramachandran vs. ACIT, Cir-29 Kol Bhanumathi N. Iyer vs. ITO Wd-29(1), Kol. Page 2 (Appeals)-8, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. Since issue involved in both the appeals is identical, hence, these appeals are taken together for hearing and are being disposed of with the common order.

2.

None has appeared on behalf of assessees despite notice of hearing. A perusal of the case files reveal that even no one had appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) also. In view of this, the matter is disposed of on merits after hearing the Ld. DR and after going through the case files. A perusal of the assessment order as well as the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the sole issue raised in both the appeals is relating to the market value of the property sold by the appellants for the purpose of assessment of capital gains on the said sale of property. The facts for the sake of convenience and brevity are taken from .

3.

The appellants are sisters. Both the assessees owned a joint property which was sold for a consideration of Rs.52 lakh and each of the assessee got 50% share out of sale proceeds. At the time of registration, the registering authority had put the price at Rs.87,55,000/-. Thereafter the appellant at their own had got a valuation done from the registered valuer who estimated the value at Rs.65,22,000/-. The assessee accordingly offered capital gains as per their half shares taking the above valuation. Thereafter the income of both the assessees was assessed accordingly.

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →