Bikram Behera, Angul V. ITO,Angul Ward, Angul, Augul

ITA 154/CTK/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1683 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Condonation of delay
• Section: 50C; 201; 20

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA , JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM . / ITA NO. 154 /CTK/20 1 9 (THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING) ( / A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 15 - 20 1 6 ) BIKRAM BEHERA, KAINFULIA SAHI, BALARAM PRASAD BANHARPAL, ANGUL - 759128 VS. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL PAN NO. : A ZJPB 3435 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHR I SUBHENDU D A TTA,DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01 / 1 2 /20 20 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 / 1 2 /20 20 / O R D E R PER BENCH : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 , PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 2 , BHUBANESWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 15 - 201 6 . 2. AS PER THE OFFICE NOTE, THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY 39 DAYS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, TO W HICH THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 426 /CTK/201 8 2 ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY O F 39 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. NONE APPEARS AT THE ASSESSEES BEHEST, THEREFORE, THE CASE IS TAKEN FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. 4 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THE HON'BLE CIT (A) - 2, HAS WRONGLY ADAPTED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN WITHOUT REFERING THE VALUATION OFFICER TO CONSIDER FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY U/S 50C(2) OF THE I. T. ACT. 2. THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND HAS WRONGLY CONCEIVED BY THE HON'BLE CIT (A) - 2 WITHOUT GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND BEING ERRONIOUS AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 3. THAT THE HON' BLE CIT (A) - 2 HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION RS. 59,82,382/ - U/S 50C OF THE I. T. ACT ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 4. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 2 ARE NOT JUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 5. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY OF T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING 5 . THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FIVE IN NUMBERS, HOWEVER, THERE ARE ONLY TWO ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL TO BE DECIDED BY US I.E. I) ADOPTION OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION BY TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW AND II) ADDITION MADE U/S.50C ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. ITA NO. 426 /CTK/201 8 3 6 . IT APPEARS, AT THE OUTSET, WITH THE INSTANCE OF THE LD. DR SHRI SUBHENDU D A TTA, LD. DR, THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGES THE ACTION OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.59,82,380/ - AFTER INVOKING SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PLEADS IN ITS GROUND THAT THE REVENUE OFFICERS HAVE NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DVO U/S.50C OF THE ACT BEFORE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE REVENUES CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT NO SUCH REQUEST CAME FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE AR GUMENTS ADVANCE D BY THE LD. DR. SUFFICE TO SAY, THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT, REPORTED IN (2015) 372 ITR 83 (CAL.) HOLDS THAT SUCH A REFERENCE IS MANDATORY EVEN IF THERE IS NO SUCH REQUEST MADE FROM THE TAXPAYER SIDE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT, RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO PROCEED AFRESH AS PER LAW U/S.50C(2) OF THE ACT BY MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO . THUS, FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOUGHT TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD 59,82,382/ - U/S.50C OF THE ACT ON THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. SUFFICE TO SAY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ITA NO. 426 /CTK/201 8 4 S INCE THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION , A LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET , IF THIS LATTER ISSUE IS ALSO SENT TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE AS PER LAW. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS AL SO ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES THEREFORE . 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 / 12 / 20 20 . SD/ - (L.P.SAHU) S D/ - ( S.S.GODARA ) / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 01 / 12 /20 20 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, SR.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , /ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - BIKRAM BEHERA, KAINFULIA SAHI, BAL ARAM PRASAD BANHARPAL, ANGUL - 759128 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//