Shri Narendra Dahyabhai Patel, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

ITA 2087/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0641 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KEYUR PATEL HEARING CONCLUDED
• Assessee Lawyers: KK SHAH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 2087 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 201 0 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO . 2087 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 0 - 11 NARENDRA DAHYABHAI PATEL . ..... ...........APPELLANT 37/B, PATEL NAGAR, ASHWANIKUMAR ROAD, SURAT 395 008 . [ PAN: A BEPP 7583 N ] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 9 (3), SURAT. .. ...........RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY K.K. SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT KEYUR PATEL FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 30 /0 7 / 20 16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 31 /08/ 20 16 O R D E R THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES LEARNED CIT(A) S ORDER DA T E D 3 RD JUNE, 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: - THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRE D IN NOT DIRECTING THE INCOME T AX OFFICER FOR REFERENCE TO VALUATION CELL AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF T HE ACT THOUGH SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE TO TH E CONCERNED OFFICER WITH LETTER G IVEN IN PERSON AND THOUGH COPY OF SUCH LETTER W A S ALSO GIVEN IN T HE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADD ITION OF RS.12,62,876/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL CAPIT A L GAIN DUE TO VALUATION BY THE ST A MP DUTY AUTHORITY. 2. IT IS A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER H A S ADOPTED STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, UNDER SECT ION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT (A) , THE ASSESSEE S I.T.A. NO. 2087 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 201 0 - 11 PAGE 2 OF 2 CONTENTION WAS THAT DESPITE HIS REQUE S T, THE MA T TER WAS NOT REFERRED TO DVO UNDER SECTION 50C(2) BUT THE APPEAL WAS TURNED DOWN ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CL A IM OF HAVING MADE SUCH A REQU EST IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACT S 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 KUM AR AG ARWAL VS. CIT [(2015) 372 ITR 83 (CAL], EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC REQUEST FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER H A S TO GIVE AN OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FOLLOW T HE COURSE PROVIDED BY LAW UNDER SECTION 50C(2). I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, A ND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO AFTER REFERRI NG THE MATTER TO THE DVO UNDER SECTION 50C(2). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST , 2016 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHM EDABAD