G.G. DANDEKAR MACHINE WORKS LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 48/NAG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 December 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act is mandatory, even if the assessee does not explicitly request it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 challenged an addition of Rs. 26.10 lakhs made by the lower authorities on account of long-term capital gains, invoking Section 50C of the Act. The addition was based on a valuation higher than the actual sale price, without referring the matter to the DVO.

What were the issues?

Whether a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory for determining the fair market value of a capital asset, even without an assessee's request.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s order dated 17-12-2019 passed in case No. CIT(A)-2/56/2016- 17 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short ‘the Act’.

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action making long term capital gains addition of Rs.26.10 lakhs after invoking section 50C of the Act, hardly deserve a detailed discussion. Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing, and more particularly, from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in para 5.1 page 8 that both the lower authorities never made any reference to the DVO u/s.50C(2) of the Act sofar as the difference between the actual sale price of Rs.18.00 lakhs via-a-vis the same valuation thereof amounting to Rs.44.10 lakhs, is concerned.

3.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argued in light of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion that the assessee had nowhere made any request regarding the issue of reference to the DVO for the purpose of valuation in order to determine the fair market value of its relevant capital asset. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments in light of PCIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Agrawal 372 ITR 83(Cal.) holding that such a reference u/s.50C(2) of the Act is indeed mandatory in nature even if the assessee concerned does not raise such a please before the departmental authorities. We adopt the very reasoning to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assesee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09th December, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 09th December, 2022 Satish

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

More judgments on Section 50C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →