SHRI DAUJI RAM ,ALIGARH vs. ITO 1(4), ALIGARH
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.698/Agr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13
Shri Dauji Ram, Vasundhara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Colony, Near A to Z Plant, Ward 1(4), Aligarh. Mathura Road, Aligarh. PAN : DKKPB1758R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 13.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.02.2025
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’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We, accordingly, proceeded ex parte against the assessee.
ITA No.698/Agr/2018
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.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13THFebruary, 2025. *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
2 | P a g e
