HEMANT DALAKOTE,HALDWANI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), HALDWANI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the alleged undisclosed short term capital gains of Rs.24,15,000/- representing the difference between actual sale consideration and the stamp price of the corresponding four capital assets/sale deed

The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly invoked section 50C r.w.s. 69A addition in the given facts of the case. It could hardly any dispute that no reference to the DVO has been made in either of the lower proceedings. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that no such reference could be made in absence of assessee’s corresponding objections raised before the Assessing Officer u/s 50C(2) of the Act.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing contention in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) has settled the issue in assessee’s favour that such a section 50C(2) reference is indeed mandatory even if there is no objection coming from the taxpayer side. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant appeal for statistical purposes and restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication in very terms. Ordered accordingly.