Krishna Veni Basupally , Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1892/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5950 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2021
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 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. 1892/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KRISHNAVENI BASUPALLY, HYDERABAD [PAN: CPUPB6563G] VS ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20-04-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2009-10 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-7, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 25-04-2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.0472 / CIT(A)-7 / 2016-17 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 CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.8,96,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TR ANSFER OF ITA NO. 1892/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: THE ALLEGED CAPITAL ASSET; IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T DT.29-12-2016 AS UPHELD IN THE CIT(A)S LOWER APPELLA TE ORDER. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THE CLINCHING FACT AT THE OUTSET ITSELF THAT NEITHER OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITY MADE THE STATUTORY REFERENCE TO THE DVO U/S.50 C(2) OF THE ACT. HE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT NO SUCH REQUES T CAME FROM THE TAXPAYERS SIDE. WE FIND NO MERIT 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 26 TH APRIL, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GO DARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 26-04-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 1892/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: COPY TO : 1.KRISHNAVENI BASUPALLY, SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, GOWRI APARTMENTS, URDU HALL LANE, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2.THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1) , HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-7, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-7, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.