SHRI DAUJI RAM ,ALIGARH vs. ITO 1(4), ALIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities added the difference between the actual sale price and the stamp price as long-term capital gain without referring the matter to the DVO, which is mandatory under section 50C. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises from an order involving proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was heard ex parte as the assessee did not appear.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of the difference between sale price and stamp duty value as capital gain was justified without referring the matter to the DVO under Section 50C of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT159 citing372 ITR 83 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Aligarh’s order in appeal no. 116/2017-18/Aligarh dated 21.06.2018, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We, accordingly, proceeded ex parte against the assessee.
Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly added the difference between the assessee’s actual sale price of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and stamp price of Rs.1,49,01,000/-; coming to Rs.29,01,000/-, as long-term capital gain (1/3rd share) u/s. 50C of the Act. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that no reference was made by the learned lower authorities to the DVO u/s. 50C of the Act held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal). Faced with this situation, we hereby restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication. The assessee shall indeed be at liberty to raise all factual and legal pleadings in the consequential proceedings.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on13THFebruary, 2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
