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

ITA 1216/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6062 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 22; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1216/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 MOHAMMED HAJI, HYDERABAD [PAN: ABMPM7313D] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22-02-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2010-11 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-4, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 28-06-2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.4 /10329 / 17-18/ W-5(3), HYD / CIT(A)-4 / HYD / 19-20 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHES T. HE IS ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX-PARTE. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE PLEADED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGE CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION INVOKING SECTION 50C OF THE ACT THERE BY ADDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER O F THE ITA NO. 1216/HYD/2019 :- 2 -: RELEVANT CAPITAL ASSET; IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT DT. 31-10- 2017, AS UPHELD IN THE CIT(A)S LOWER APPELLATE ORDER . 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THE CLINCHING FACT AT THE OUTSET ITSELF THAT NEITHER OF THE LOW ER 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 TAXPAYERS SIDE. WE FIND NO MER IT IN THE REVENUES 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 PROCEEDI NGS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED DOES NOT RAISE ANY SUC H PRAYER. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE INSTANT S OLE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS AFRESH A DJUDICATION AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ALL FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL PLEAS IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDIN GS. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND APRIL, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GO DARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 22-04-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 1216/HYD/2019 :- 3 -: COPY TO : 1.MOHAMMED HAJI, C/O.P.BALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE, ROOM NO.216/A, LEFT WING, NBK ESTATE, GOLCONDA X ROADS, HYDERABAD. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-4, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.