SUHAIL ANJUM ,JHANSI vs. ITO,2(3)(3) , JHANSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 190/AGR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 February 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 50C,Section 50C(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 11.02.2025Pronounced: 11.02.2025

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

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 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.

4.

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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11TH February, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →