Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a long-term capital gain addition of Rs. 29.87 lakh made by the lower authorities for the assessment year 2010-11, arising from the sale of alleged agricultural land. The Assessing Officer had granted an indexation benefit of Rs. 6 lakh without properly ascertaining the actual cost of acquisition.
Held
The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to ascertain the actual cost of acquisition and did not make a mandatory reference to the DVO under section 50C(2). Consequently, the tribunal remitted the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh and appropriate adjudication in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer correctly computed long-term capital gain without ascertaining the actual cost of acquisition and by failing to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) for the sale of agricultural land.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 50C(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060117714(1), dated 25.01.2024, in case no. CIT(APPEAL), Ghaziabad/10031/2018-19, in proceedings u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte.
Learned Departmental Representative invites the undersigned’s attention at the outset to the effect that both the lower authorities herein have made and sustained long term capital gain addition of Rs. 29.87 lakh on the ground that the Achcheja, tehsil Dadri, Gautambudh Nagar.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions. It is noticed from the assessment discussion at pages 2 & 3 that the learned Assessing Officer has only given indexation benefit of Rs. 6 lakhs than having ascertained the actual cost of acquisition in the assessee’s hands. This is indeed coupled with the fact that he had also not made any reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) which has been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). I, therefore, deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to remit 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 purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 19.12.2024.