Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

372 ITR 83High Court2015#618 most cited

What is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the valuation of property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation or if there is a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration and the guideline value. This reference is mandatory, even if not explicitly requested by the assessee, to ensure a realistic fair market value and avoid injustice.

159

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT · Section 50C · Section 50C(2) · DVO reference mandatory · Assessing Officer duty bound · stamp duty valuation dispute · guideline value difference · fair market value determination · capital gains Section 50C · valuation without assessee request

Also reported as

47 Taxmann.com 158225 Taxmann 211

Sections most often in play

Section 50CSection 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 147Section 250Section 144Section 148Section 54EC

Issues it is cited on

section 50c(2)section 50c(1)section 50csection 142asection 50section 43castamp duty valuefull value of considerationsection 55circle ratesection 56(2)(x)fair market value

Judgments citing Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

Chandralok Hotels Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 300/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50OSection 5O

…AO's reference to the DVO was made suo-moto and invalid as the AO exceeded his jurisdiction. 3.4.6 Per contra, the learned AR has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal). On a perusal thereof, we find that the Hon'ble Court; after detailed consideration of the provisions of section 50C of the Act; has held that the valuation by the DVO, contemplated under section :- 14 -: Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Hyderabad. 50C of the Act, is required to give fair treatment to the tax-payer and avoid the miscarriage of just…

Kamlesh Konodia, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2112/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 144Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54

…/- as against SRO price of :- 3 -: Rs.30,56,000/-. And also that neither of the learned lower authorities made Section 50C(2) statutory reference to the DVO held to be mandatory as per hon'ble Calcutta high court’s decision Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal). 5. Learned departmental representative’s only argument is that no such plea had been raised from the assessee’s side before the lower authorities. 6. We find no merit in the instant argument since the same already stand declined in the foregoing judicial precedent. We accordingly accept the assessee’s twin substantive grievances for stat…

Siva Shanker Reddy Gandluru, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1686/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 50C

…es to the very root of the matter. And also it might lead to the impugned capital gains addition without determination of the nature of the corresponding capital asset. The Revenue further fails to dispute that the case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) holds that Section 50C(2) reference is mandatory even if there is no such prayer from the assessee’s side before the Assessing Officer. And that there is no indication about the nearest municipality under Article 243T r.w. Article 243P of the Constitution of India. We thus accept the assessee’s identical latter grounds of Section 50C additi…

Sivapothuluru Veerareddy Gadluru, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1685/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 50C

…es to the very root of the matter. And also it might lead to the impugned capital gains addition without determination of the nature of the corresponding capital asset. The Revenue further fails to dispute that the case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) holds that Section 50C(2) reference is mandatory even if there is no such prayer from the assessee’s side before the Assessing Officer. And that there is no indication about the nearest municipality under Article 243T r.w. Article 243P of the Constitution of India. We thus accept the assessee’s identical latter grounds of Section 50C additi…

Krishna Veni Basupally, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1892/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 144Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…her of the lower authority made the statutory reference to the DVO u/s.50C(2) of the Act. He vehemently contended that no such request came from the taxpayer’s side. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant stand. Case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) holds that a Section 50C(2) reference to the DVO is mandatory in Sec.50C proceedings even if the assessee concerned does not raise any such prayer. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all factual as…

Vijay Uttamrao Pargaonkar by Gpa Holder Vaijnath Uttamrao Pargaonkar, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 138/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri N. Srikanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…he issue of correctness of identical sec.50C addition in all these cases. Mr. Srikanth fails to rebut clinching fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) even if the tax payer has not raised objections to this effect. I therefore restore assessee’s identical latter substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication as per law. These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case…

Shobha Jayant Jatkar by Gpa Holder Vaijnath Uttamrao Pargaonkar, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 137/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri N. Srikanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…he issue of correctness of identical sec.50C addition in all these cases. Mr. Srikanth fails to rebut clinching fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) even if the tax payer has not raised objections to this effect. I therefore restore assessee’s identical latter substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication as per law. These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case…

Rajani Gajanand Patwari by Gpa Holder Vaijnath Uttamrao Pargaonkar, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 136/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri N. Srikanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…he issue of correctness of identical sec.50C addition in all these cases. Mr. Srikanth fails to rebut clinching fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) even if the tax payer has not raised objections to this effect. I therefore restore assessee’s identical latter substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication as per law. These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case…

Makrand Uttamrao Pargaonkar by Gpa Holder Vaijnath Uttamrao Pargaonkar, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 135/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri N. Srikanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…he issue of correctness of identical sec.50C addition in all these cases. Mr. Srikanth fails to rebut clinching fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any reference to the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) even if the tax payer has not raised objections to this effect. I therefore restore assessee’s identical latter substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication as per law. These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case…

Mohammed Haji, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1216/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 144Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…of the lower authority has made the statutory reference to the DVO u/s.50C(2) of the Act. He vehemently contended that no such request came from the taxpayer’s side. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant stand. Case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) holds that a Section 50C(2) reference to the DVO is mandatory in Sec.50C proceedings even if the assessee concerned does not raise any such prayer. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all factual as…

Late Smt.Sushila Shah Rep by Nikhil Nandan C. Shah, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 527/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 144Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…de the statutory reference to the DVO u/s.50C(2) of the Act. The Revenue’s stand is that no such request came from the taxpayer’s side. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant stand. Hon'ble Calcutta high court’s decision Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) that a reference to the DVO is mandatory in Sec.50C proceedings even if the assessee concerned does not raise any such prayer. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all factual as well as legal pleas i…

Gangani Hari Krishna, Ranga Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1054/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. Gangani Jaya Raj 1052/Hyd/19 2009-10 Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: ANMPR2335J] Income Tax Officer, Hari Babu Gangani, Ward-8(2), 1053/Hyd/19 2009-10 Rajendranagar Hyderabad Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: AOXPG3837Q] Gangani Hari Krishna, Rajendranagar 1054/Hyd/19 2009-10 Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: AZVPK8658E] For Assessee : Shri Mohd. Afzal, AR For Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of Heari…

Hari Babu Gangani, Ranga Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1053/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. Gangani Jaya Raj 1052/Hyd/19 2009-10 Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: ANMPR2335J] Income Tax Officer, Hari Babu Gangani, Ward-8(2), 1053/Hyd/19 2009-10 Rajendranagar Hyderabad Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: AOXPG3837Q] Gangani Hari Krishna, Rajendranagar 1054/Hyd/19 2009-10 Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: AZVPK8658E] For Assessee : Shri Mohd. Afzal, AR For Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of Heari…

Gangani Jaya Raj, Ranga Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1052/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. Gangani Jaya Raj 1052/Hyd/19 2009-10 Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: ANMPR2335J] Income Tax Officer, Hari Babu Gangani, Ward-8(2), 1053/Hyd/19 2009-10 Rajendranagar Hyderabad Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: AOXPG3837Q] Gangani Hari Krishna, Rajendranagar 1054/Hyd/19 2009-10 Mandal, R.R.Dist., [PAN: AZVPK8658E] For Assessee : Shri Mohd. Afzal, AR For Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of Heari…

M Deepa Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(3), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1706/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri A. Srinivas, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…/s 50C(2) of the Act. 2.1. Mr.Pandey at this stage vehemently contended that no such plea of DVO’s reference had come from assessee’s side during the course of scrutiny. We find no substance in the instant argument. Case law Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to make sec.50C’s reference even if the tax payer has not objection(s) in assessment proceedings. We therefore restore this sole substantive grievance back to the file of Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication. It is made clear that assessee shall be at liberty to raise any factual o…

Sri Satyanarayana Goud Malakpeta, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2101/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 144Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…the statutory reference to the DVO u/s.50C(2) of the Act. He vehemently contended that no such request came from the taxpayer’s side. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant stand. Hon'ble Kolkata high court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (Cal) holds that such a reference is mandatory even if the assessee concerned does not raise any such prayer. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all factual as well as legal pleas in the consequential pro…

Shri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6174/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…amp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the AO would refer the valuation of such property to the Valuation Officer. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of “Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT” reported in 372 ITR 83 has clearly held that the AO, discharging quasi-judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to follow the course provided by law, which in that case, was the reference to the valuation officer. In the present case, in view of the assessee’s specific dispute and claim before the AO that stamp valuation of the property sold was not its…

Arti Devi Chand, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 53(5), New Delhi

ITA 158/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Satyeh Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 50C

…tamp duty, therefore, it can be said that assessee did object to the same valuation and relied upon decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Sunil Kumar 10 ITA.No.158/Del./2020 Smt. Arti Devi Chand, New Delhi. Agarwal vs., CIT, Siliguri [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) in which it was held that “A.O. was obliged to make a reference to the DVO”. He has also referred to Notification of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh to show that no addition shall have to be made against the assessee. 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and referred to valuation repor…

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1980/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1979&1980/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Rajesh Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata C/O Sri S.L. Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpa3042Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.43/Cit(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/12-13/16- 17/Kol & 44/Cit(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/13-14/16-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Respectively; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First & Foremost Identical Grievance Is That Both The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On The Civil Construction Business Receipts Resulting In Addition Of Rs.84,53,313/- & Rs.25,56,747/-; Assessment Year Wise, Respectively. Mr. Kochar Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order(S) As Well As The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion(S) To This Effect Estimating The Assessee’S Profit Rate Declared @1.44 & 1.18%

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…. Kochar’s only plea is that neither any of the lower authorities had made section 50C(2) statutory reference to the DVO which has been held as a mandatory pre-condition as per hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2016) 372 ITR 83 (Cal). We find no merit in assessee’s instant technical remand plea as it has been made clear in the CIT(A)’s discussion in para 2 page 22 that this latter issue is also no more res integra since both the lower authorities have followed the tribunal’s order dated 13.04.2018 in ITA Nos.10 & 27/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 in preceding a…

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1979/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1979&1980/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Rajesh Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata C/O Sri S.L. Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpa3042Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.43/Cit(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/12-13/16- 17/Kol & 44/Cit(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/13-14/16-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Respectively; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First & Foremost Identical Grievance Is That Both The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On The Civil Construction Business Receipts Resulting In Addition Of Rs.84,53,313/- & Rs.25,56,747/-; Assessment Year Wise, Respectively. Mr. Kochar Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order(S) As Well As The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion(S) To This Effect Estimating The Assessee’S Profit Rate Declared @1.44 & 1.18%

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…. Kochar’s only plea is that neither any of the lower authorities had made section 50C(2) statutory reference to the DVO which has been held as a mandatory pre-condition as per hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2016) 372 ITR 83 (Cal). We find no merit in assessee’s instant technical remand plea as it has been made clear in the CIT(A)’s discussion in para 2 page 22 that this latter issue is also no more res integra since both the lower authorities have followed the tribunal’s order dated 13.04.2018 in ITA Nos.10 & 27/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 in preceding a…