How many judgments cite Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT?

159 judgments on BharatTax cite Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 50C, Section 143(3), Section 50C(2), Section 147, Section 250, Section 144.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 50c(2)section 50c(1)section 50c section 142a section 50 section 43ca stamp duty value full value of consideration section 55 circle rate section 56(2)(x)fair market value

Judgments citing Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

Namita Pandey, Palamau vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 278/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…

Shri Govindbhai Vithalbhai Moradiya, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as stated above

ITA 1404/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri U. S. Bhati & Shri

Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…ic request from the assesses, the A.O. has to give an option to the assessee to follow the course provided by law under section 50C(2). There is a direct decision to this effect by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [(2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal]. No judicial precedence to the contrary has been brought to my notice. Respectfully following the esteemed view of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sun// Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (supra), I uphold the plea of the assessee and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication denovo after referring the matter to th…

Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 237/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 23/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Sunil Kumar Kedia Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-3, Jamshedpur Pan: Afrpk7574F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Ld.Ar For The Respondent : Shri P.K. Mondal, Jcit, Ld. Sr.Dr I.T.A No. 237/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. D.C.I.T,Cir-3, Ranchi Pan: Acwpa4378B (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : S/Sh. Vinay Goenka, Advocate & V.N. Goenka, Fca, Ld.Ars For The Respondent : Shri P.K. Mondal, Jcit, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : -03-2019

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR

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

…O may make necessary reference alike that provided in section 50C(2) of the Act. The Revenue vehemently contends that these two assessees had not prayed for such a reference. I find no merit in the Revenue’s argument. Hon’ble Calcutta high court’s decision in 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that a reference u/s. 50C(2) of the Act is mandatory even if an assessee does not raise corresponding plea before the Assessing Officer. I therefore direct the AO to proceed afresh in these two appeals, ITA Nos. 23 & 267/Ran/2018 are restored back to the Assessing Officer for further proceedings as per law. These two assessees appeals…

Sri Vivek Kumar, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 267/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR

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

Anilava Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 24(1), Hooghly

ITA 2009/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15

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

…Departmental Representative fails to dispute that sec. 56(2)(vii)(c) proviso stipulates that the issue of valuation has to be referred to Valuation Officer as per sec. 50C of the Act. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT 372 ITR 83 (Cal) holds that such a reference to the DVO is very much mandatory even if an assessee does not raise the plea during the course of assessment. I therefore restore this valuation issue back to the Assessing Officer to proceed further as per sec. 50C of the Act in accordance with law. No other argument has been raised before me during the course o…

Mohammad Gulzar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 25(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 363/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 363/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M. D. Shah, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Halder, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vi)

…ring is that the 2 Mohammad Gulzar A.Yr.2014-15 assessee had never sought such a reference before the lower authorities. We find no merit in accepting Revenue’s instant argument. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) held that the impugned non-objection or not raising such a plea at taxpayer’s behest forms no ground for the Assessing Officer for not making statutory reference u/s 50C of the Act. We make it clear that there is no dispute between the parties about application of section 50C(2) reference in section 56(2)(vi) proceedings. We therefore restor…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…garded as income. 5.12 To support the contention that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in taking the value as per stamp duty valuation, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT, (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer for reference of the matter to the departmental valuation officer for valuation of the property rather than adopting provision of section 50C by the Ld. CIT(A). 5.13 On the contrary, Ld. DR submitted that section 50C has no role in this case. According to her, full…

Moni Kumar Subba, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3982/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

Shri Vijaybhansingh Lallusingh Rajput, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

ITA 2990/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2990/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Vijaybhaisingh Lallusingh Rajput V. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 258/10-11 Near Shiv Ward-2(3)(4), Surat. Vijay Processors, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat – 394221. [Pan:Abxpr3970L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Ramesh Kumar Malapani, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 31.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 28.09.2018 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Dated 24.08.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

Section 50C

…Vijaysingh Lalusingh Rajput v. ITO2(3)(4) Surat /I.T.A. No. 2990/Ahd/2015/A.Y.11-12 Page 1 of 14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत INCOM TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-SURAT-BENCH-SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "याियक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE C .M. GARG, JM & O. P. MEENA, AM आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2990/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Vijaybhaisingh Lallusingh Rajput V. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 258/10-11 Near Shiv Ward-2(3)(4), Surat. Vijay Processors, GIDC, Pandesara, Surat – 394221. [PAN:ABXPR3970L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee by Shri Ramesh Kumar Malapan…

Sanjay Chobey, Jhansi vs. ACIT Circle-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Acit, Circle –2(3)( 1), Dr. Sanjay Chobey, (Huf) Opp. Ware House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, Pan : Aahhd7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…uation of capital assets to the DVO, if the assessee objects adoption of stamp duty or circle rates. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil ITA 140/Agr/2018 5 Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT, in (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) where it was held that a reference to DVO in the case of assessee who contest jantri price in question to be higher than the fair market value of the relevant capital assets, then a reference is mandatory even if an assessee does not make any such prayer. To buttress his contention, he relied on the following case laws: i) ACIT 5(1), Hyder…

Sri Sushil Kumar Mohta, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC, Xxviii, Kolkata

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

ITA 475/KOL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 132

…r under section 50C(2) only when the assessee objects the value adopted or assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority during the course of assessment proceedings, it is observed that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal –vs.- CIT [372 ITR 83] has clearly held that the Assessing Officer is duty bound to make a reference to the Valuation Officer before adopting the value of assets by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of computing capital gain even without there being any objection. Moreover, as submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, no opportunity was specifically gi…

ITO 31(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Surekha Vilas Soudagar, Mumbai

ITA 5198/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

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

…1 ITA 5198/Mum/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI Before Shri Joginder Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.5198/Mum/2016 (Assessment year: 2012-13) ITO, 31(3)(4), Mumbai vs Smt. Surekha Vilas Soudagar 4D/2, Ashokraj CHS Ltd, S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-62 PAN : BJJPS5982F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Virender Singh Respondent by Shri Kamlesh N Doshi Date of hearing 12-06-2018 Date of pronouncement 20-06-2018 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-42, M…

Arun Krishna Daw, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-34(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2156/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 55A

…nstant plea does not deserve acceptance since assessee had himself admitted the relevant sale price to be at the stamp rate himself in his initial computation (supra). We find no merit in these reasoning. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT concludes that mere non-objection or acceptance on an assessee’s part qua stamp value as sale price forms no ground for the Assessing Officer for not making the statutory reference as provided in Section 55A read with 50C of the Act. We apply the very reasoning herein as well to restore the above sole issue back t…

Umesh Prasad Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(3), Kolkata

ITA 1943/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 1943/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Umesh Prasad Shaw…………………………..…..………………………………………….…….……...Appellant C/O. D.J. Shaw & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Adyps 6806 M] I.T.O. Ward-48(3), Kolkata………………………………………...……..……………………..…. Respondent Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Tauheed, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 23Rd, 2018 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap :-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…sessment proceedings, the AO was not required to make a reference to the DVO. It is, however, observed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT, 372 ITR 83, cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, wherein a similar issue has been decided by the Honourable jurisdictional High Court in the context of Section 50C of the Act, by observing as under: – “For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required t…

Gangadharayya G Narendramath, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2), Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2155/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 50CSection 54E

…ua the assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A). Page 3 of 5 4. At this juncture, it was pointed out by the bench that as per the judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT as reported in 372 ITR 83 (Cal), it was held that even in a case where no prayer is made by the assessee to refer the matter to DVO u/s. 50C (2) of the IT Act, the AO, discharging a quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law i.e. valuation by the DVO and in the presen…

Shri Tarun Manmohan Garg, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 3208/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Passing The Impugned Order. This Action Of The Lower Authorities Is In Clear Breach Of Law & Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore Deserve To Be Quashed.”

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 4. I find that, as held by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [(2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal], even in the absence of specific request from the assessee, the Assessing Officer has to give an option to the assessee to follow the course provided by law under section 50C(2). I, therefore, uphold the grievance of the I.T.A. No.3208/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 3 of 4 assessee, and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing O…

Shri Ganesh Umraosingh Singhal, Nagpur vs. I.T.O. Ward -4(4), Nagpur

In the result the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…ion 50C the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation officer ( DVO). In this regard Learned counsel of the assessee has also placed reliance upon Honourable Calcutta High Court decision in the case of S K Agarwal vs. CIT 372 ITR 83. 3. The above submission of the assessee was before the Learned CIT(Appeals) also. But the Learned CIT(Appeals) in his wisdom has chosen to ignore the same. 4. In my considered opinion this is not appropriate. Respectfully following the decision from the Honourable Calcutta High Court (supra) I remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Office…

Vinod Kumar Mehta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 5494/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2013-14 Vinod Kumar Mehta, Ito, Ward- 4(4), K-3/20A, 1St Floor, Gurgaon Vs. Dlf Phase- Ii, Gurgaon. Pan : Ajdpm 5579 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…this claim was rejected then the 5 Assessing Officer being quasi-judicial authority should have referred the matter to the DVO for arriving at proper valuation of the property. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal) has observed as under :- “We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The submission of Ms. Ghutghutia that the requirement of clauses a) and (b) of sub-Section 2 of Section 50C has not been met by the assessee, can hardly be accepted. The requirement of clause (b) of sub-Section 2 o…

I.T.O WD - 29(3), Kolkata. vs. Dilip Kumar Addy, Kolkata

ITA 227/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Biswas,JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

…value adopted by stamp duty authorities. In support of his claim the assessee has cited the case of ITO V Gita Roy decided by ITAT Kolkata C Bench reported in (2012) (146 TTJ(KOL) 762) and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs CIT 372 ITR 83 (Cal). 3 Dilip Kumar Addy A..Y.2009-10 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The AO has taken the sale proceeds as recorded by the…