Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

Shri Dauji Ram, Aligarh vs. ITO 1(4), Aligarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

…000/-, as long-term capital gain (1/3rd share) u/s. 50C of the Act. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that no reference was made by the learned lower authorities to the DVO u/s. 50C of the Act held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal). Faced with this situation, we hereby restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication. The assessee shall indeed be at liberty to raise all factual and legal pleadings in the consequential proceedings. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the ope…

Suhail Anjum, Jhansi vs. ITO, 2(3)(3), Jhansi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2013-14

…re) for the purpose of re- computing long term capital gains. Shri Shrivastava, learned Sr. DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact that no reference was made to the DVO u/s. 50C(2), which has been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). Faced with this situation, we restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh re- adjudication in very terms. 4. It is made clear before parting that the assessee shall be indeed at liberty to take factual as well as legal pleas as are admissible to him in consequential proceedings. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed…

Kamal Kishor Pandey, Gwalior vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Income Tax

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalkamal Kishore Pandey Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac, Shivaji Nagar, Amkho Delhi Lashkar,Gwalior Madhya Pradesh-474001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Asjpp5665K Appellant .. Respondent

…hereto. The Revenue at this stage vehemently argues that no such objection for making reference DVO had been raised by the assessee before the lower authorities. We find no merit in the Revenue’s technical objection in light Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Kolkata) that such a reference under section 50C(2) applicable mutatis mutandis to section 56(2)(vii)(b), as mandatory even in absence of any such objection raised by the taxpayer. We thus deem it appropriate to restore the case back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly. P a g…

Akshat Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

…rjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a reference is indeed mandatory, even if there is no objection raised from the former’s side. We, accordingly, accept the assessee’s instant twin appeals raising this identical sole substantive grievance in principle and restore the matte…

Akshat Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

…rjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a reference is indeed mandatory, even if there is no objection raised from the former’s side. We, accordingly, accept the assessee’s instant twin appeals raising this identical sole substantive grievance in principle and restore the matte…

Akshat Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

…rjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a reference is indeed mandatory, even if there is no objection raised from the former’s side. We, accordingly, accept the assessee’s instant twin appeals raising this identical sole substantive grievance in principle and restore the matte…

Akshat Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

…rjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a reference is indeed mandatory, even if there is no objection raised from the former’s side. We, accordingly, accept the assessee’s instant twin appeals raising this identical sole substantive grievance in principle and restore the matte…

Rahul Bajpai, Idgah Chowk vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Shri Ram Plaza

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

…assessee by triggering the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid case, had held that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer as contemplated u/s. 50C of the Act is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The Ld. AR submitted that it was further observed that even in a case where no such prayer was made by the advocate repres…

Shriram Narayan Tikde, Nagpur vs. Income Tax, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

…learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) being quasi-judicial authority did not himself refer the matter to DVO for valuation. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble Calcutta HC in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Siliguri (372 ITR 83) (Calcutta HC). The assessee requests that, the matter be referred to DVO for finding the fair market value of the property sold. Deduction towards cost of improvement incurred on Shantinagar house 2.3 property of Rs.4,28,750 during FY 2006-07 Sr. Dates Remarks Paperbook No. 1. 1/10/2006 to Cost of improvement Refer pages 51- 31/07/2007 incurred o…

Vijay Krishna Bhandari, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vijay Krishna Bhandari Mata Chowra Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G)-495 001 Pan: Akxpb0382P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

…ty, then, the A.O before drawing any adverse inferences is obligated to make a reference to the Valuation Cell, had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.). Also, the Ld. AR had drawn support from the orders of the ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Raipur in the case of Narendra Kumar Lunia Vs. DCIT, ITA No.202/RPR/2014, dated 22.09.2016 and that of the ITAT, ‘Division Bench’, Raipur in the case of Ram Saran Yadav Vs. ITO, ITA No.159/RPR/2017, dated 26.07.2022. Alternatively, the Ld. AR submitted that there…