SHRI S. ARULSELVAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, WARD - 7 (1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2333/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 November 2019AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal was premature without the DVO's report. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after receipt of the valuation report.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed despite the Assessing Officer referring the case to the valuation cell under Section 50C(2) for valuation of property. The DVO's report was not yet received, and the appeal was adjourned multiple times.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without waiting for the DVO's valuation report, which was crucial for the assessment under Section 50C(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 19.11.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2332/Chny/2019
ITA No.2333/Chny/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are appeals filed by the assessees directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) in appeals No. ITA No.76/CIT(A)-7/2018-

1.

ITA Nos. 2332 & 2333/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 19 and both dated 12.06.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17 in the case of Smt. Arulselvam Akshitha and Shri Soundararajan Arulselvan respectively.

2.

Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that in Ground No.3, the assessee has specifically challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the assessee’s appeal. It was submitted that the appeal of the learned CIT(A) was adjourned on multiple occasions at the instance of the Chartered Accountant for want of valuation report of the DVO.

It was a submission that even as on today, the DVO’s report has not yet come.

It was a submission that however, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

4.

The learned Authorized Representative drew our attention to the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein at page No.4 it has been specifically mentioned that as per the request of the assessee, the case was referred to the valuation cell u/s.50(C)(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for valuation of the fair market value of the impugned property and that the order was subject to rectification according to the report of the Valuation Officer.

5.

In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). & 2333/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: 6. We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.

7.

The perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) shows that in para – 6, the learned CIT(A) has recorded multiple opportunities, wherein it is alleged that the assessee has sought adjournment. The Revenue is not able to produce any record to show that the DVO’s report called for u/s.50(C)(2) of the Act has been produced. Without the said valuation report, admittedly the hearing of the assessee’s appeal would be in futility. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issue in the appeals are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re-adjudication after receipt of the valuation report by the DVO u/s.50(C)(2) of the Act.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 19th day of November, 2019 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 50C(2)

All 293 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →