AJAB SINGH,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO,WARD-1(1) , NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3659/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 December 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.12.2024Pronounced: 19.12.2024

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 19.12.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →