Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold land along with siblings, declaring a sale consideration of Rs. 1,30,50,000 (assessee's 1/6th share being Rs. 21,75,000). The case was reopened as the capital gains under Section 50C were deemed to have escaped assessment, with the stamp duty valuation being significantly higher at Rs. 1,60,31,000 for the assessee's share. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F, stating the entire actual sale consideration was reinvested.
Held
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) in an identical case of the assessee's brother had deleted the addition, and the ITAT had also deleted the entire addition in that case. Therefore, applying the principles of consistency and parity of facts, the tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the applicability of Section 50C for long-term capital gains based on stamp duty valuation and the assessee's entitlement to exemption under Section 54F, especially in light of a consistent decision in a sibling's identical case.
Sections Cited
Section 50C, Section 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
O R D E R
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:
This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.09.2025 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’].
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.74,46,583/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain by invoking Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on value adopted for stamp duty purposes at Rs.1,60,31,000/- (assessee’s 1/6th share being Rs.26,71,833/-) and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in conforming the addition of Rs.74,46,583/- disregarding the provisions of Section 54F as the actual sale consideration amounting to Rs.21,75,000/- (being 1/6th of Rs.1,30,50,000/-) stood reinvested entirely which 1. Mahesh Shrivastava vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) entitles the assesse for exemption u/s 54F from whole amount of Long Term Capital Gain as held by the Hon’ble Bench in dated 23.08.2024 in the case of assessee’s brother namely Shri Naresh Kumar Shrivastava, hence, it is prayed that the addition of Rs.74,46,583/- made by the Ld. A.O. and confirmed by the Learned CIT(Appeals) may kindly be deleted.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O has erred on facts and in law by making an addition of Rs.74,46,538/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain by invoking the provisions section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has been further confirmed by the Learned CIT(Appeal), Delhi, despite of the fact that the Learned CIT(Appeal), Delhi in the identical case of the assessee’s brother namely Shri Naresh Shrivastava relating to the same property had deleted the addition of Rs.69,13,333/- vide order dated 01.05.2024 in view of determination of FMV at Rs.1,60,31000/- (assessee’s 1/6th share being Rs.26,71,833/-) by the Court of Collector of Stamp vide order dated 30.09.2021 and the Hon’ble ITAT, Raipur Bench vide order dated 23.08.2024 deleted the entire addition in the said case, therefore, in view of the parity of facts and keeping in view the principles of consistency, it is prayed that the addition made by the Ld. A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeal) ,may kindly be directed to be deleted.
The Appellant caves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.”
3. The genesis of this appeal, as evident from the record, are that the appellant assessee has filed his original Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year declaring income of Rs.95,000/- on 30.03.2009. Later on, the case was reopened on the reasoning that the Capital Gains determinable under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) on transfer of the land by the appellant assessee during the relevant year had escaped assessment. The appellant assessee along with his siblings (assessee’s share is 1/6th) had sold land, situated at Labhandi, Raipur, admeasuring 16.71 Acres (6.66 Hectare) for Rs.1,30,50,000/- in the relevant year. However, the Stamp Valuation Authority/Sub-