SUHAIL ANJUM ,JHANSI vs. ITO,2(3)(3) , JHANSI
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises from an order involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The lower authorities invoked section 50C addition due to a difference between the assessee's actual sale price and the stamp price of a capital asset.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and proceeded ex parte. It was observed that no reference was made to the DVO under section 50C(2), which is mandatory as per a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made under section 50C was valid without a reference to the DVO. Whether the proceedings were conducted properly when the assessee did not appear.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 50C, 50C(2)
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.190/Agr/2022 Assessment Year:2013-14
Suhail Anjum, 197, Mohalla Vs. Income-tax Officer, Tallaya, Behind SBI, Jhansi. 2(3)(3), Jhansi. PAN : ATJPA6377Q (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 11.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 11.02.2025
ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 , arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Agra’s order dated 08.03.2018 in Appeal No. 106/CIT(A)-2/Agra/ITO-2(3)(3)/Jhansi/2016-17,
involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We,
accordingly, proceeded ex parte against the appellant. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing at the outset with able assistance coming from Revenue side that both the learned lower
ITA No.190/Agr/2022
authorities have invoked section 50C addition after having noticed
difference between assessee’s actual sale price of Rs.3,10,10,625/- as
against stamp price of the relevant capital asset amounting to Rs.74,28,1000/- (to the extent of 1/6th share) for the purpose of re-
computing long term capital gains. Shri Shrivastava, learned Sr. DR
could hardly dispute the clinching fact that no reference was made to the
DVO u/s. 50C(2), which has been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar
Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). Faced with this situation, we
restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh re-
adjudication in very terms.
It is made clear before parting that the assessee shall be indeed at
liberty to take factual as well as legal pleas as are admissible to him in
consequential proceedings.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11TH February, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 11THFebruary, 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
