Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an order concerning assessment year 2018-19, where lower authorities held the assessee derived long term capital gains on the alleged sale of twin plots. The difference was noted between the actual sale price and the stamp value price.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the lower authorities failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities made a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act in determining capital gains.
Sections Cited
143(3), 50C(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal /2025 for assessment year 2018-19 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 26.08.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080012800(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have derived long term capital gains on alleged sale of its twin plots amounting to Rs. 11,46,139/-; on account of difference between the actual sale price of Rs. 32 lakhs vis a vis stamp value price thereof coming to Rs. 36,13,000/-; respectively in assessment order dated 11.02.2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, learned counsel submits that both the lower authorities nowhere made any statutory reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act to the DVO which has been held as mandatory in nature in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). This factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. This tribunal, therefore, finds merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal argument and remits the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication as per law. It is made clear that the learned Assessing Officer’s consequential computation shall only assess the assessee’s capital gain qua the plots sold/transferred in the relevant assessment year. Ordered accordingly.
All other issues between the parties are kept open at this stage. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025.