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

M/S Nandani Developers Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 58/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 250

…merits. Such dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. 3. The AO is required to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta). 4. Under these circumstances we set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 2 I.T.A. No. 58/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Nandini Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 30th September, 2020. [S.S. Godara]…

Atul Kumar Agarwal, Begusarai vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Begusarai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 94/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…1 Atul Kumar Agarwal, AY-2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, “VIRTUAL HEARING” AT KOLKATA [Before Shri S. S. Godara, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 94/Pat/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- (PAN: ACCPA7050L) tax, Circle-2, Begusarai Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 17.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 17.09.2020 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arise against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-Bhaglpur’s order…

Smt. Archana Chowdhury, West Bengal vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 73/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Smt. Archana Chowdhury बनाम Dcit, Circle-1 4Th Floor, Central Flat No. 8, 7/1 Lal Babu V/S. Shair Road, Belrumath, Revenue Building, 5, Howrah, West Bengal-711 Main Road, Ranchi 202 Pin-834 001 [Pan No.Afcpc 8709 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Mohanti, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-07-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15 -07-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench (Oral):- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ranchi’S Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A), Ranchi/10024/2017-18, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. The Case Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits. 2. With The Able Assistance Of Learned Senior Departmental Representative, We Notice At The Outset That The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Order Under Challenge Has Declined To Condone The Delay Of Eighty Days’ Delay In Filing Stated To Be

Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…e to the DVO for ascertaining fair market value of the corresponding asset as it is applicable mutatis mutandis in sec.56(2)(vii)(b)(c) Proviso to this effect. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that such a reference is very much mandatory even if the taxpayer’s concerned does not raise an objection before the Assessing Officer. We adopt the very reasoning herein as well and restore the instant issue Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication as per law. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above ter…

Mohan Prasad Gupta, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Ranchi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 343/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Mohan Prasad Gupta Ito, Ward-2(1), Ranchi / C/O D.P. Paul(Fca), 718/1, V/S. Nabin Mitra Road, Near Samsung Plaza, Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. Pan No.Acbpg4107H अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

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

…clinching fact that neither Mohan Prasad Gupta Page 2 of the lower authorities had made section 50C(2) statutory reference to the DVO before adopting the impugned fair market value. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s judgment in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2016) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that such a reference is very much mandatory made even if the assessee does not raise any plea before the lower authorities. We therefore restore the assessee’s sole grievance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication after making section 50C(2) reference to the DVO. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purp…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…the stamp duty valuation exceeds the fair market value then the income-tax authorities are bound to refer the same to DVO for valuation of the said properties as has authorities as per note enclosed. In support he relied upon Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) that the assessing officer is duty bound to refer to valuation if the assessee disputes the sale consideration even if no prayer is made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, the authorities below were duty bound to refer the same for valuation. The appellant specifically had stated before the CIT(A) that the FMV…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…the stamp duty valuation exceeds the fair market value then the income-tax authorities are bound to refer the same to DVO for valuation of the said properties as has authorities as per note enclosed. In support he relied upon Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) that the assessing officer is duty bound to refer to valuation if the assessee disputes the sale consideration even if no prayer is made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, the authorities below were duty bound to refer the same for valuation. The appellant specifically had stated before the CIT(A) that the FMV…

Nafisa Abizar Banatwala, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 974/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.974/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Nafisa Abizar Banatwala B1/5, EMCA House 289, shahid Bhagatsingh Road ……………. Appellant Fort, Mumbai 400 001 PAN – AKVPB2016Q v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–17(2)(4), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Ravindra Poojary Revenue by : Shri Saurabh Deshpande Date of Hearing – 06.02.2020 Date of Order – 04.03.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 11th January 2019,…

Baneswar Tudu, Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jamshedpur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 381/RAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godarai.T.A No.381/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Baneswar Tudu Vs. Ito, Wd-1(3), Br C/O Ca Nawal Kishore Mahato, Flat No.401, 4Th Floor, K C Apartment, 137, Ambagan Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Pin-831001. Pan/Gir No. : Amvpt1904F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…0/- as against stamp price of Rs.3,09,09,600/-; respectively. I do not find any reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act to have been made either by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Hon’ble Calcutta high court’s decision in CIT vs. Sunil Kr. Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83(Cal) holds that such a reference is very much mandatory even if the taxpayer does not raise any plea to this effect. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s foregoing sole grievance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. It shall be very much open for the assessee I.T.A No.381/Ran/2018 Baneswar Tudu to plead his…

Sampa Sarkhel, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-49(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2030/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2030/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sampa Sarkhel……………..……………………...……………....……..…………..……..…………....……Appellant 11, Sebagram Pally Belghoria Kolkata – 700 056 [Pan: Cntps 4363 N] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(3), Kolkata…….........................................….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Mrs. Sampa Sarkhel, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 15, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 10/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Find That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex- Parte Order On The Ground That The Neither The Assessee Nor The Authorized Representative Had Appeared Before Him. He Has Not Disposed Off The Case On Merits. This Is Not Permissible Under Law.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 2030/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sampa Sarkhel……………..……………………...……………....……..…………..……..…………....……Appellant 11, Sebagram Pally Belghoria Kolkata – 700 056 [PAN: CNTPS 4363 N] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(3), Kolkata…….........................................….....….…......Respondent Appearances by: Mrs. Sampa Sarkhel, A/R, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : February 12th,…

Prasanta Kumar Ghosal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-22(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2570/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2013-14 Prasanta Kumar Ghosal Income Tax Officer बनाम / 115/2A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Ward-22(1), 54/1, Rafi V/S. Moulali, Kolkata-700 014 Ahmed Kidwai Road, [Pan No. Amspg 6878 N] Kolkata-700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Nandadulal Pyne, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-02-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 14-02-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6 Kolkata’S Order Dated 07.11.2019 Passed In Case No.Cit(A)-6, Kolkata-6/10636/18-19, Involving Proceedings U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. I Notice At The Outset From A Perusal Of The Cit(A)’S Order That He Has Refused To Condone Two Years & Two Months’ Delay In Filing Of The Lower Appeal At The Assessee’S Behest Attributing Reasons Thereof To Prolonged Illness. The Revenue’S Case During The Course Of Hearing Before Me Is That The Assessee’S Condonation Filed Before The Cit(A) Did Not Explain The Above Noted Delay. I Proceed In This Backdrop That The Assessing Officer Had Added Assessee’S Long Term Capital Gains Of ₹28,74,051/- U/S 50C Of The Act Without Making Statutory Reference To The Dvo As Affirmed In The Lower Appellate Order. As Against This The Impugned Two Years & Two Months’ Delay Is Only Procedural In Nature. Hon'Ble Apex Court’S Landmark Decision Collector

Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…aspects. 3. Learned departmental representative at this submitted that the assessee had never been prayed for sec. 50C(2) reference before the lower authorities. I find no merit in the instant plea since hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax settles the law that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to refer to valuation issue to the DVO even if the assessee does not raise such plea. I therefore condone the assessee’s two years and two months delay going by the foregoing reasoning and restore the issue back to the Assessing Of…

Arghanil Mukhopadhyay, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward-23(2), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2360/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…for Rs. 42,96,000/-, and not at the value as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority. So in all fairness the AO ought to have referred this issue to the DVO as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal 372 ITR 83(Cal) Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the issue back to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication of this issue with a direction to him to refer the valuation of the immovable property purchased by the assessee to the DVO and to adjudicate the issue de novo after getting the report from DVO and after hearing…

M/S. Nanda Tours and Travels, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7 (3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1102/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1102/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1102/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Nanda Tours & Travels, Vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Prop. Shri Vinod Mohan Sakore, Pune S.No.47, Ganesh Nagar, Near Venus Apartment, Vadgaonsheri, Pune – 411 014 PAN : BHPPS2274B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri V.K. Singh Date of hearing 02-01-2020 Date of pronouncement 03-01-2020 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-8, Pune on 08-05-2019 in…

G M Kenjale Construction Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1930/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 G M Kenjale Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), 22, Parvati, Pune – 411 009 Pune Pan : Aaacg6186E

Section 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 G M Kenjale Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), 22, Parvati, Pune – 411 009 Pune PAN : AAACG6186E Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Kishor Phadke Respondent by Shri Ashok Prasad Jakhanwal Date of hearing 10-12-2019 Date of pronouncement 16-12-2019 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05-04-2017 passed by the CIT(A)-1, Pune in relation to the assessment…

Pramila Jaiswal, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-46(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1435/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250Section 50C

…e AO to refer the matter to the DVO for the purpose of Section 50C of the Act is against the propositions of law laid down to the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. In the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Siliguri reported in [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta). 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 29th November, 2019. [Aby T. Varkey] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29.11.2019 Bidhan 2 I.T.A. No. 1435/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pramila Jaiswal. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Pramila Jaiswal, 81…

Soma Dey, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 486/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.486/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Soma Dey Vs. Ito, Ward-45(2), Kolkata 7, Motilal Sen Lane, Near Shastitala Mandir, Narkeldanga, Kol-700011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bzvpd2029K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 13, Kolkata Dated 30.11.2017 Passed In Case No.226/Cit(A)-13/Kol/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Sent An Rpad Notice(S) Dt. 18.09.2019 For Today’S Hearing. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee/Appellant. 2. Case File Suggests That The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Making Long-Term Capital Gains Addition Of Rs.55,74,290/- In Respect Of Sale Of The Capital Asset In Issue After Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Affirming Assessing Officer’S Action To This Effect Reads As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…d never made such a prayer before either the lower authorities and therefore, they have rightly made the impugned addition. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant argument in principle. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs CIT 372 ITR 83 (Cal) held long back that an assessee’s failure in raising such a reference plea is not fatal in income tax proceedings as the Assessing Officer has to make statutory reference to the DVO u/s 50C of the Act. I.T.A No.486/Kol/2018 Soma Dey We therefore restore the instant sole issue of assessment of assessee’s capital gains back to the Assessing O…

Tapan Kayal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-63(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(b)

…ed by the assessee to the valuation determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority, the Assessing 3 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Tapan Kayal Officer was not required to make any reference to the Valuation Officer. In the case of Sudhir Kumar Agarwal –vs.- CIT [372 ITR 83] cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that the Assessing Officer is duty bound to make a reference to the Valuation Officer before adopting the value of assets determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of computing capital gain without there being any objection raised by the assessee. Al…

Shri Prakash Gulabrai Chawla, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5869/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 50C

…the DVO in terms of section 50C(2) of the Act, in case, he wants to adopt the stamp duty value of the property as deemed sale consideration. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v/s CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal.).On the issue of indexation benefit on cost of improvement incurred in the assessment year 2011–12, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, neither the Assessing Officer nor learned Commissioner (Appeals) have properly appreciated the facts 9 Shri Prakash Gulabrai Chawla brought on record. Thus, he submitted, indexation benefit sh…

Shri. Somashekar Venkataswamappa, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1086/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 Shri Somashekar Venkataswamappa, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Arehalli Village, Uttarahalli Post, Income Tax, Subramanyapura Post, Circle – 3(2)(1), Bangalore-560 061. Bangalore. Pan : Acvpv 7051 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

…and computation of the LTCG in accordance with law after taking into account the DVO’s report in the matter. In support of assessee’s contentions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal). 3.3 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 3.4.1 We have considered the rival submissions; perused the orders of the authorities below and the material on record. From an appraisal of the records Page 6 of 12 before us, it is seen that the assessee sold a property at Site No.11/15-490 vide K…

Narendra Kumar Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centraql Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)(a)

…luation Officer. In support of his contention that for invoking section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Officer was bound to make reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) of the Act, the Ld. counsel relied on following case laws: ❖ Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Vs CIT 372 ITR 83 (Cal)— Para -8 ❖ Voltas Ld. Vs. ITO 161 ITD 199 (Mumbai)— Para 4.1 Page 7 3.6 On the contrary, the Ld. DR on the issue of addition of Rs.49,12,040/- submitted that, (i) the assessee himself has shown these assets as capital asset in the return of income and shown long-term capital gain (LTCG) and short-term capital gain (STCG) on their sale and a…

Dilip Kumar, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 318/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

…DVO u/s 50(C)(2) of the Act. Mr. Das vehemently contends that the assessee nowhere raised such a plea in the lower proceedings. I find no merit in Revenue’s instant argument. Hon’ble Calcutta high court decision in Sunil Kr. Agarwal vs. CIT reported in [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal) wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer has to make the impugned reference, even if, there is no such plea raised at the assessee’s behest. I therefore restore the instant former issue back to the Assessing Officer for further appropriate proceedings. He shall also examine the assessee’s claim section 54 deduction as hon’ble apex cour…