Sri Satyanarayana Goud Malakpeta, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

ITA 2101/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9208 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2021
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2101/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI SATYANARAYANA GOUD MALAKPETA, HYDERABAD [PAN: AGGPM4997E] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04-01-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-01-2021 O R D E R PER BENCH : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2009-10 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-1, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 18-09-2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.0424/CIT(A)-1/HYD/2016-17/2017-18, IN PROCEEDING S U/S.144 R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHO RT, THE ACT]. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARED FOR ASSESSEES BEH EST. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS ACCORDINGLY PROC EEDED 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 ITA NO. 2101/HYD/2017 :- 2 -: ADDING THE ALLEGED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.84,68, 886/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT UPHELD IN THE CIT(A)S LOWER APPELLATE ORD ER. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THE CLINCHING FACT AT THE OUTSET ITSELF THAT NEITHER OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES HAD 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. HON'BLE KOLKATA HIGH COURTS DECISION IN SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT (2014) [372 ITR 83] (CAL) HOLDS THAT SUCH A REFERENCE IS MANDATORY EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED DOES NOT RAISE ANY SUCH PRAYER. WE THEREFOR E DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE INSTANT SOLE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS AFRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ALL FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL PLEAS IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JANUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GO DARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 06-01-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 2101/HYD/2017 :- 3 -: COPY TO : 1.SRI SATYANARAYANA GOUD MALAKPETA, D.NO.2-2-1048, AMBERPET, HYDERABAD. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-1, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-1, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.