Joy Prakash Singh , Tinsukia V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Tinsukia , Tinsukia

ITA 109/GTY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8554 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIP SENGUPTA J
• Assessee Lawyers: S P BHATI F
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 109 / GAU / 2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 JAI PRAKASH SINGH JASODA TALKIES COMPOUND, DIGBOI- 786171, DIST. TINSUKIA [ PAN NO.AHDPS 9100 M ] V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE, TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.P.BHATI, F CA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANDIP SENGUPTA, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 10-07-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 -07-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-DIBRUGARHS OR DER DATED 15.03.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. CIT(A), DIBRUGARH/10084/2016-17, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT T HE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. FOR THE REASON STATED IN ASSESSEES CONDONATION PETITION, NOT OBJECTED BY THE REVENUE, WE CONDONE THE IMPUGNED DELAY OF TH REE DAYS IN FILING BEING NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE BUT ON ACCOUNT O F CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND ASSESSEES CONTROL. THIS APPEAL IS NOW TAKEN UP FO R ADJUDICATION. 3. COMING TO MERITS, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES SOLE S UBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AC TION MAKING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ADDITION OF RS.2,68,23,375/- B Y INVOKING SEC. 50C OF THE ITA NO.109/GAU/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 JAI PRAKASH SINGH VS. ACIT, CIR TINSUKIA PAGE 2 ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE ASSESSEES SOLD / TRANSFERRED HIS CAPITAL ASSET ON 26.12.2013 FOR RS.15 LAKH AS AGAINST STAMP VALUE OF RS.5,52,90,000/-. MR. SENGUPTA VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY PLEA F OR MAKING REFERENCE TO DVO U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH CO URTS JUDGMENT IN SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (CAL) HOLDS THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ABOVE STATUTORY RE FERENCE TO THE DVO EVEN IF THERE IS NO SUCH PLEA COMING FROM THE TAXPAYERS SIDE. WE PLACE OUR RELIANCE ON THE SAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AND RESTORE THE ISSU E BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEARNED COUNSEL AT THIS STAGE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO GOT HIS REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT QUA VALUATION OF THE CA PITAL ASSET IN HIS FAVOUR. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERA TION THE SAME WHILST FINALIZING THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AS PER LAW . 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 12/07/ 2019 SD/- SD/- ( #) (%& #) ( A.L.SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) GUWAHATI, *DKP '- 12/ 07 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-JAI PRAKASH SIONGH, JASODA TALKIES COMPO UND, DIGBOI-786171 DIST. TINSUKIA 2. /RESPONDENT-ACAIT, CIRCLE, TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA 3. 2 3 8 / CONCERNED CIT GUWAHATI 4. 3- / CIT (A) GUWAHATI 5. ; &&2, 2, 8 / DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI 6. A / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (ON TOUR) 2,