SAMPA SARKHEL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-49(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2030/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 February 2020AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits is not permissible. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction to refer the fair market value fixation to the DVO.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order because the assessee did not appear. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 56(2)(vii) regarding the fair market value of a property purchased by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case is valid. Whether the fair market value of a property needs to be referred to the DVO when it is at variance with the sale consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble]

order : February 19th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata, (hereinafter the “ld.CIT(A)”), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 10/01/2019, for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

After hearing rival contentions, I find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex- parte order on the ground that the neither the assessee nor the authorized representative had appeared before him. He has not disposed off the case on merits. This is not permissible under law.

1.

2.1. Be it as it may, we find that the Assessing Officer has invoked Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, as the fair market value of the property purchased was stated to be Rs.19,56,150/-. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 0083, held that, the Act mandates reference to the DVO for determination of the fair market value of the relevant capital assed, when the same is at variance from the value sale consideration.

3.

Under these circumstances, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law,

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sampa Sarkhel after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer is directed to refer the matter of fixation of fair market value to the DVO. to refer the matter of fixation of fair market value to the DVO. to refer the matter of fixation of fair market value to the DVO.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 19th day of February, 2020. Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Member Dated : 19.02.2020 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: opy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Sampa Sarkhel 11, Sebagram Pally Belghoria Kolkata – 700 056 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(3), Kolkata 49(3), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)

All 365 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →