Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arose against an order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal primarily concerned issues related to the validity of reassessment proceedings, the addition on account of section 50C, and the failure to consider the DVO's valuation report.
Held
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's ground regarding the validity of section 148/147 proceedings, rejecting it. However, regarding the section 50C addition, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer proceeded without obtaining or considering the DVO's valuation report due to time-barring concerns.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 were valid and whether the addition made under section 50C without considering the DVO's report was justified.
Sections Cited
11(2), 11(6), 143(3), 148, 147, 50C, 55A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
O R D E R Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)
Delhi’s DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1063607297(1) dated 29.03.2024, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
3. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1. The Ld. AO erred in not allowing valid accumulation u/s. 11(2).
There cannot be double taxation on the same income accumulated u/s. 11(2). The unspent amount is offered to tax in Α. Υ. 2022-23.
The Ld. AO failed to consider the request for allowing the time for submission of small balance direction letters for corpus donations.
4. The Ld. AO erred in not allowing depreciation u/s. 11(6).
5. The Ld. AO erred in adding interest on income tax refund which was not received.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing submission within the allowed time and depriving the appellant submission trust for and dismissed the appeal which is bad in law because it is breach of principles of natural justice.”
We have given our thoughtful considerations to assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions.
148/147 proceedings itself, learned counsel could hardly dispute that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding reasons reproduced in para 3 of the assessment order dated 27.12.2018 had indeed taken note of not only the difference between actual sale price and stamp price of the corresponding capital asset giving rise to long term capital gains but also the learned counsel was fair enough that the same had been wrongly declared/disclosed as short term capital gains as against the correct factual position. We thus see no merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal ground in very terms once the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons based on tangible material only. It is rejected accordingly.
Next comes the issue of section 50C addition amounting to Rs.2,50,25,760/- made in both the lower proceedings.
There is no dispute between assessee’s actual sale price and stamp value adopted by the State Revenue Authorities. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned Assessing Officer had made section “55A/50C” reference to the District Valuation Officer “DVO” for the purpose of determining fair admittedly framed the assessment/reassessment dated 27.12.2018 without either getting the said valuation report or waiting for the same for the sole reason that it was “time barring assessment” as per his detailed discussion in para 7.1 in question. Learned CIT(A) has also decided/dismissed the assessee’s lower appeal challenging the impugned addition.
All the above narrated facts make it clyster clear that both the learned lower authorities have not either received or considered the DVO’s valuation report; as the case may be before making the impugned section 50C addition of Rs.2,50,35,760/-. This being the clinching fact herein, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance on merits back to the learned Assessing Officer in very terms. We further deem it appropriate to observe that it would indeed be appreciated if the learned Assessing Officer concludes the consequential proceedings as early as possible keeping in mind the fact that the assessment herein is A.Y. 2015-16. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2024.