KRISHNA,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3733/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2024AY 2019-20Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, relying on the `Sunil Kumar Aggarwal` judgment which makes DVO reference mandatory even without taxpayer objection, restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer. This was for a fresh adjudication, as no DVO reference was made by the lower authorities under the 3rd proviso to Section 56(2)(x) read with Section 50C(2).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 7.88 lakhs made under Section 56(2)(x)(b) for Assessment Year 2019-20. This addition arose because the actual purchase cost of a capital asset (Rs. 4.90 lakhs) was significantly less than its stamp value (Rs. 12.78 lakhs), and the lower authorities did not refer the valuation to a DVO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) is justified based on the difference between actual purchase price and stamp duty value of a capital asset. 2. Whether a reference to the DVO is mandatory under the 3rd proviso to Section 56(2)(x) read with Section 50C(2) in such cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 56(2)(x)(b),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

For Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/12/2024Pronounced: 24/12/2024

O R D E R

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 01.08.2024 in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/106722364(1), in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

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

3.

Mr. Bansal vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the assessee/ purchaser had admittedly paid actual purchase cost of Rs. 4.90 lakhs as against stamp value of the relevant capital asset amounting to Rs. 12.78 lakhs and therefore, the impugned section 56(2)(x)(b) addition of Rs. 7.88 lakhs has been rightly made in her hands. 4. It is noticed in this factual background that no reference to the DVO appears to have been made by the learned lower authorities u/s 56(2)(x) read with 3rd proviso thereto which has adopted u/s 50C(2) of the Act mutatis mutandis. And case law Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Page | 1 Krishna (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) holds that the same is indeed mandatory in nature even in absence of taxpayers objections to this effect. I, accordingly, deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts to restore the assessee’s instant appeal to the Assessing Officer for his appropriate afresh adjudication as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →