RAJESH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), FARIDABAD

It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties which arises for the tribunal’s apt adjudication is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action assessing capital gains of Rs.7,18,586/-; in assessment order dated 30.08.2024 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehemently submission. There does not appear to be much a dispute between the parties that the assessee inter alia has sold his capital asset(s) wherein both the stamp price as well as actual sale price read figure of Rs. 2,17,10,000/- as having indexed cost of Rs.2,48,02,987/- resulting in capital loss of Rs.30,92,987/-. There is further no quarrel that no difference is found between the assessee’s sale price and the stamp price of the capital asset. It is clear in this factual backdrop that the learned assessing authority still preferred to make section 56C reference to the DVO which does not arise at all, there being no difference between the foregoing twin considerations. The tribunal therefore finds merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground to this effect and directs the Assessing Officer to recompute his long-term capital gains going by the actual sale price/stamp price only. Ordered accordingly. No other ground or argument has been pressed.