KALYAN PAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal. However, in brief, his grievances revolve around two issues, namely – (a) correct determination of capital gain, if any, arose to the assessee on sale of a residential premises No. 5/4, Ward-65, Bondel Road, Bamun Para Lane, Karaya, South 24- Parganas;

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income electronically on 09.06.2017 declaring total income of Rs.16,91,190/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143(2)/142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee had sold a capital asset in the shape of a two-storied building comprised at premises No. 5/4, Ward-65, Bondel Road, Bamun Para Lane, Karaya, South 24-Parganas. The assessee has declared sale consideration at Rs.92,00,000/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that Stamp Duty Valuation Officer for registering the sale deed has determined the value of the property at Rs.1,54,62,874/- on which Stamp Duty is to be charged. The ld. Assessing Officer confronted the assessee as to why full sale

Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution without recording any finding on merit on these disputes.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Departmental Valuation Officer has submitted his report and he determined the fair market value of the property at Rs.91,93,854/- . Copy of this Valuation Report is being placed on pages no. 3 & 4 of the paper book. In view of the above, he submitted that no addition deserves to be made with the aid of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.

Apart from the above fold of contention, he further contended that while computing the capital gain as contemplated in Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to take into consideration the correct amount as acquisition cost of

The ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that if valuation report is being received after passing of the assessment order, then, it can be remitted back to the ld. Assessing Officer for considering the D.V.O.’s report and redetermination of the capital gain, if any, chargeable in the hands of the assessee.

We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the assessment order would reveal that it is a very brief assessment order, which does not deal with all the three issues raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The D.V.O.’s report has been received after passing of the assessment order, therefore, it had not been considered. This reason is sufficient to set aside the assessment order and remit the issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer. However, after considering the non-speaking order of both the authorities, we deem it appropriate to remit the issues to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The ld. Assessing Officer shall decide three issues, namely- (a) whether any addition required to be made under section 50C after considering the D.V.O.’s report;

With the above direction, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/06/2024.