RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 216/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 February 2019AY 2011-122 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 held that no penalty could be levied under Section 271(1)(c) because the Assessing Officer did not obtain a valuation report from the valuation officer as required by law before making the addition. The assessee had also furnished a reasonable explanation.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold a property and derived capital gains. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation, attracting Section 50C. A penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the addition under Section 50C was not based on a proper valuation report from the valuation officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Date of concluding the hearing : January 15th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : February 1st, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This is an appeal is filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’) dated 05/09/2017, wherein penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Under the circumstances, we dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.

3.

Heard the ld. Departmental Representative. The assessee had sold property and derived income from capital gain. As there was a difference between market value of the property as per the valuation for stamp duty and the sale consideration, section 50C of the Act was attracted and consequently there was additional capital gain tax of Rs.1,01,191/- was levied. We find that the assessee has sold the property i.e. land situated in Village Gourangapur, P.S. Bhadreshwar on 06.04.2010 for Rs.9,00,000/-. The market value as per ADSR for the above property was Rs.17,81,815/-. The Assessing Officer at Para 3 Page 2 of his order 2 Radheshyam Agarwal Assessment Year: 2011-12 records that the required report from the valuation cell is not received and that, as the assessment is getting barred by limitation, the assessment is completed. The valuation as per ADSR as obtained by the Valuation Authority, Chandannagar, Hooghly was not referred to the valuation cell. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has furnished a reasonable explanation. The Assessing Officer has not based the addition after obtaining valuation report from the valuation officer as required by law. In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is cancelled.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the 1st February, 2019.

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →