Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 4,47,000/- made by lower authorities under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. This addition represented the difference between the actual sale price of Rs. 40,00,000/- and the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 44,47,000/- for a capital asset. The assessee was proceeded ex-parte as no one appeared on her behalf.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the departmental representative argued for affirming the addition, he conceded that no mandatory reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) was made during the assessment proceedings. Citing a High Court precedent which holds such a reference as mandatory, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per law.
Key Issues
Whether the addition under section 50C is sustainable when no reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) was made during assessment, as required by law.
Sections Cited
143(1), 50C, 50C(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the order of Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram, dated 10.07.2024 in DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1066577701(1), in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the departmental side that the learned lower authorities herein have added an amount of Rs.4,47,000/- u/s 50C of the Act which represents difference between the actual sale price of Rs.40,00,000/- and her share in the stamp value valuation of the capital asset; coming to Rs.44,47,000/-; respectively.
Kalpana Sharma 4. Mr. Bansal has vehemently argues in support of the impugned addition that the same ought to be affirmed as the assessee’s case as she has not been able to rebut the same in the lower appellate proceedings. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that no statutory reference u/s 50C(2) was made to the DVO during the course of assessment which has been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.).
Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2024.