SWAPNA ALOK CHOWDHURY,SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1669/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 October 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had affirmed the addition without considering the DVO's valuation report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of long-term capital gains based on the sale of land. The AO had referred the valuation to the DVO, but the assessment was completed before the DVO's report was received.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of long-term capital gains was valid without considering the DVO's valuation report as per Section 50C(2) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C(2),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 03.10.2024Pronounced: 10.10.2024

and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060198252(1), dated 29.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest.

She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side that both the learned lower

2 ITA.No.1669/PUN./2024 authorities have made long term capital gains addition of Rs.10,60,289/- on account of she is having transferred the relevant capital asset representing land at CTS.No.18762 of old survey no.16, Padampura, Aurangabad to the extent of 15.46% share; for Rs.15 lakhs; in total sale consideration fo Rs.97 lakhs stood assessed by the stamp authorities at Rs.2,54,06,000/-.

3.

A perusal of the case file reveals that learned Assessing Officer had indeed made the statutory reference to the DVO, Nagpur u/sec.50C(2) of the Act on 01.12.2019 for determining the fair market value of the assessee’s land as indicated in para-7 page-3 of the assessment order dated 18.12.2019. He thereafter framed the impugned assessment in assessee’s case on the ground that the same was getting time barred on 31.12.2019. Meaning thereby, that the DVO’s valuation report in consequence to the Assessing Officer’s reference never saw light of the day. Learned DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has nowhere considered this aspect whilst affirming the impugned addition in assessee’s hands.

4.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate decision taking into consideration of the DVO’s valuation

3 ITA.No.1669/PUN./2024 report dealing with the assessee’s capital asset as per his reference dated 01.12.2019 as per law. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.10.2024.

More judgments on Section 50C(2)

All 293 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →