Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order arising from proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The core issue involved the addition made by the lower authorities invoking Section 50C of the Act concerning long-term capital gains.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the valuation of an asset is subjective and that the assessee's capital asset suffered from various distressing factors. Therefore, a lump sum relief of Rs.10,00,000/- was granted, with the condition that it should not be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities correctly applied Section 50C for the addition to long-term capital gains, considering the subjective nature of asset valuation and distressing factors affecting the property.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sh. Chakresh Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-134, Surya Nagar, Ward-2(1)(2), Ghaziabad-201011 Ghaziabad-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. APBPJ4995B Assessee by: Sh. Lakshya Budhi Raja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078252407(1) dated 07.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein, a perusal of the instant case file reveals that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 50C of the Act for the purpose of making long term capital gains addition amounting to Rs.32,43,520/- which represents the difference between actual sale price to the extent of Rs.2,31,51,069/- vis- à-vis the circle rate thereof of Rs.2,94,23,248/-; respectively,
It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel representing assessee vehemently argues that the relevant capital asset herein suffers from many distressing factor of illegal encroachments, open drains and municipal corporation issues etc. which the DVO had not correctly appreciated in his report submitted before the lower authorities. The Revenue could hardly dispute that such an issue of valuation of an assets is indeed a subjective one wherein various distressing factors could not be all together ruled out as well. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lump sum relief of Rs.10,00,000/- to the assessee would be just and proper that with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The impugned long term capital gains addition of Rs.32,43,520/- stands upheld to the extent of Rs.22,43,520/- in very terms therefore. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
No other ground or arguments has been pressed.