ANILAVA CHATTERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 24(1), HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2009/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 January 2019AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of valuation must be referred to the Valuation Officer as per Section 50C of the Act. A reference to the Valuation Officer is mandatory even if the assessee does not raise the plea during assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased an immovable property for ₹11 lac, while the stamp duty value was ₹20.15 lac. The lower authorities added the difference of ₹9.15 lac to the assessee's income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration of an immovable property is taxable as income from other sources without referring the valuation to the Valuation Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 50C

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, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’s order dated 26.06.2018 passed in case No.10297/CIT-6/Kol/2-16-17, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action invoking Sec.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for adding the amount in question of ₹9,15,000/- in the course of assessment as affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. Suffice to say, the impugned sum represents difference between stamp value of ₹20.15 lac as against the sale deed price of ₹11 lac. pertaining to the immovable property in issue. Both the Assessing Officer as well as ITA No. 2009/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Anilava Chatterjee Vs. ACIT, Cir-24(1), HGY Page 2 CIT(A) are of the view that this differential sum deserves to be assessed under the head “income from other sources”. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that sec. 56(2)(vii)(c) proviso stipulates that the issue of valuation has to be referred to Valuation Officer as per sec. 50C of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that such a reference to the DVO is very much mandatory even if an assessee does not raise the plea during the course of assessment. I therefore restore this valuation issue back to the Assessing Officer to proceed further as per sec. 50C of the Act in accordance with law. No other argument has been raised before me during the course of hearing.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 25/01/2019 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 25/01/2019 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Anilava Chatterjee, 38/1, P.C. Banerjee Road, Dakshineswar Kolkata-700076

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ACIT, Cir-24(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Khadinamore, G.T. Road, Chnsurah, Hooghly 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →