MAHESH PRASAD,GIRIDIH vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), DHANBAD
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-2015. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel initially mistakenly stated it was a department's appeal. The Revenue's Sr. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal perused the appeal and found it to be an assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had rightly directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the value determined by the DVO as per Section 50C of the Act. As the assessee provided no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, it was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the DVO's valuation as per Section 50C of the Act, and whether the assessee has shown any reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
Sections Cited
50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची न्य यपीठ, र ाँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.269/RAN/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Mahesh Prasad, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Dhanbad S/o Bajinath Prasad Argaghat Road, Giridih-815301 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : BQDPP 4612 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..
निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kapardar, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Sh Khubchand T Pandya, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Dhanbad, dated 21.08.2019, in IT Appeal No.CIT(A), Dhanbad/10050/2016-17 for the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. Shri Rajesh Kapardar, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR on behalf of the revenue. 3. When this matter was called for hearing in assessee’s appeal, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that this is an appeal filed by the department. When it was pointed out to him that this is assessee’s appeal, he refused to agree and he was holding on that it is an appeal of the revenue.
2 ITA Nos.180-182/Ran/23 4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that this appeal has been filed by the assessee. He vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the appeal clearly shows that this is assessee’s appeal. Further a perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the value as arrived at by the ld. DVO being the lesser of the amounts in respect of valuation applying the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. As the assessee is not able to show any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) stands upheld. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025.
Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्य नयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER र ाँची Ranchi; दिनांक Dated 06/05/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- . 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- आयकि आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. निभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकि अपीलीय अनर्किण, र ाँची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेश िुस र/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची / ITAT, Ranchi
