SHRI GANESH UMRAOSINGH SINGHAL,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD -4(4), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 559/NAG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 January 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to refer the matter to the DVO was inappropriate. Following the Calcutta High Court's decision, the issue was remitted back to the AO for valuation by the DVO.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an immovable property and the Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 50C. The assessee argued that the AO failed to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as per Section 50C(2) and (3). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO erred in mechanically applying Section 50C without referring the valuation to the DVO as per sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

1 ITA No. 559/Nag/2016.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. No. 559/Nag/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09. Ganesh Umraosingh Singhal, The Income-tax Officer, Nagpur. V. Ward-4(4), Nagpur. PAN ANJPS1382F. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri Abhay Agrawal. Respondent by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Date of Hearing : 14-12-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 3rd January, 2017.

O R D E R.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-4, Nagpur dated 26/08/2016 and pertains to assessment year2008-2009.

The grounds of appeal read as under : 1. The order passed by the learned AO is bad in law and the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the learned AO. 2. The learned AO erred in making addition of Rs.9,27,000 on account of short term capital gains on sale of plot of land. 3. The learned AO erred in applying provisions of section 50C in a mechanical manner. 4. The learned AO and CIT(A) did not provide the Assessee benefit of provisions of section 50C(2)&(3) of the Act. 2. In this case assessee has sold an immovable property. The Assessing

2 ITA No. 559/Nag/2016.

Officer has invoked provisions of section 50C. The assessee in this regard is aggrieved that as per the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 50C the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation officer ( DVO). In this regard Learned counsel of the assessee has also placed reliance upon Honourable Calcutta High Court decision in the case of S K Agarwal vs. CIT 372 ITR 83.

3.

The above submission of the assessee was before the Learned CIT(Appeals) also. But the Learned CIT(Appeals) in his wisdom has chosen to ignore the same.

4.

In my considered opinion this is not appropriate. Respectfully following the decision from the Honourable Calcutta High Court (supra) I remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to remit the issue for the valuation before the DVO and thereafter decide as per law.

5.

In the result the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 3rd day of January., 2017.

Sd/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. Nagpur, Dated: 3rd January, 2017.

3 ITA No. 559/Nag/2016.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →