KALPANA SHARMA,NE DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-59(8), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3814/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 December 2024AY 2019-202 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 50C,Section 50C(2)

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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 26.12.2024Pronounced: 26.12.2024

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”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

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.).

5.

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.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →