MR. DHARAM PAL SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issue of cost of acquisition and the applicability of Section 50C by passing a speaking order after considering fresh evidence if necessary.
What were the facts?
The assessee along with co-owners sold certain properties. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12,77,416/- as Short-Term Capital Gain, which was partially succeeded by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that Section 50C was applicable but did not adjudicate on the cost of acquisition.
What were the issues?
Whether Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to the sale of lease rights, and the proper determination of the cost of acquisition for the land sold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 15.06.2016 of CIT(A)-1, Noida pertaining to 2008-08 AY on the following grounds:-
“The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida in passing the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the Assessee is unjust, and deserves to be quashed.
2. That his action in holding that the share of the assessee in total sales considerations of the lease rights allotted in the land to be determined on the basis of provisions of the Section 50C of the IT. Act, 1961, is wrong and not as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus the additions need to be deleted. 3. That his action in not adjudicating, on the issue of Cost of Acquisition of the land sold by the Assessee, in the appeals filed by the Assessee is wrong and thus considering the facts of the case, it needs to be decided and relief granted to the Assessee. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify and/or withdraw grounds of appeal up to the date of hearing of the appeal.”
The appeal had came up for hearing on 02.11.2016 on which date, time was sought by the parties accordingly the appeal came up for hearing on 03.11.2016. Both the parties have been heard. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee alongwith co-owners was found to have sold as per AIR information, the following specific properties i.e. M-16; M-40; M-41 and M-95 in Sec.-66, Noida. The assessee was required to furnish computation of I.T.A .No.-4545/Del/2016 Dharam Pal Singh vs ITO
Page 2 of 3 capital gain on the aforesaid properties. The explanation offered in regard to the cost of acquisition was not accepted and addition of Rs.12,77,416/- as Short-Term Capital Gain was made in the hands of the assessee. The issue was challenged in appeal before the CIT(A) where the assessee partially succeeded as the CIT(A) held that the share of the assessee is 1/40 of the gross amount. However, the provisions of section 50C were held to be applicable and on the cost of acquisition challenged by way of Ground No.5 before the Commissioner(Appeals) the issue remained undecided. In the light of the afore-mentioned facts, considering the submissions of the Ld.AR and the Ld.Sr.DR, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned order with the direction to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of cost of acquisition raised by the assessee before the said authority on the basis of facts and evidence for which if need be the assessee be permitted to file fresh evidences. The view taken in regard to the same property in the case of the co-owners was also not known to the parties thus the parties requested that even though the issue raised questioning the applicability of section 50C has been decided by the CIT(A) in a cursory manner however facts in reference thereto qua the co-owners have not been referred to or discussed. This issue too it was requested may also be set aside back to the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the same by way of a speaking order. Considering the finding, it is seen that the submissions of the parties are found to be correct. Accordingly, the issue are set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide then a fresh in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026