PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-22(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2570/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 February 2020AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. It also held that the Assessing Officer has a duty to refer valuation issues to the DVO even if the assessee doesn't explicitly request it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of over two years, attributed to prolonged illness. The Assessing Officer had added long-term capital gains without referring the valuation to the DVO as required by Section 50C.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the Assessing Officer was obligated to refer the valuation to the DVO under Section 50C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6 Kolkata’s order dated 07.11.2019 passed in case No.CIT(A)-6, Kolkata-6/10636/18-19, involving proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

I notice at the outset from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s order that he has refused to condone two years and two months’ delay in filing of the lower appeal at the assessee’s behest attributing reasons thereof to prolonged illness. The Revenue’s case during the course of hearing before me is that the assessee’s condonation filed before the CIT(A) did not explain the above noted delay. I proceed in this backdrop that the Assessing Officer had added assessee’s long term capital gains of ₹28,74,051/- u/s 50C of the Act without making statutory reference to the DVO as affirmed in the lower appellate order. As against this the impugned two years and two months’ delay is only procedural in nature. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision COLLECTOR, Prasanta Kr. Ghosal Vs. ITO Wd-22(1), Kol Page 2 LAND ACQUISITION VS. Mst. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settled the law long back that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all technical aspects.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →