PRAMILA JAISWAL,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-46(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1435/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 November 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for proper allocation of capital gains. It also noted that the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the non-obligation to refer to the DVO under Section 50C was contrary to High Court pronouncements.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order from the CIT(A) concerning capital gains for AY 2012-13. The core issue involved the proper allocation of capital gains to the assessee as a co-owner of the property.

What were the issues?

Whether capital gains were properly allocated to the co-owner assessee and if the AO was obligated to refer the matter to the DVO under Section 50C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C

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]

order : November 29th, 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)14, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 05.03.2019 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2012-13.

2.

After hearing rival contentions, I find that the issue should be restored to the file of the AO for the reason that, there is no proper allocation of the capital gain in question to the assessee who is a co-owner of the property. Moreover, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that there was no obligation on the part of the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for the purpose of Section 50C of the Act is against the propositions of law laid down to the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. In the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Siliguri reported in [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta).

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 29th November, 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 →