Prasanta Kumar Ghosal, Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-22(1), Kolkata

ITA 2570/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5910 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTA KHANRA JCITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: NANDADULAL PYNE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2570/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSAL 115/2A, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, MOULALI, KOLKATA-700 014 [ PAN NO. AMSPG 6878 N ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-22(1), 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA-700 016 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI NANDADULAL PYNE, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-02-2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14-02-2020 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 , ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-6 KOLKATAS OR DER DATED 07.11.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.CIT(A)-6, KOLKATA-6/10636/18-19, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE A CT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. I NOTICE AT THE OUTSET FROM A PERUSAL OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER THAT HE HAS REFUSED TO CONDONE TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS DELAY IN FILING O F THE LOWER APPEAL AT THE ASSESSEES BEHEST ATTRIBUTING REASONS THEREOF TO PR OLONGED ILLNESS. THE REVENUES CASE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE ME IS THAT THE ASSESSEES CONDONATION FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) DID NOT EXPLAIN THE ABOVE NOTED DELAY. I PROCEED IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED ASSESSEES LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS OF 28,74,051/- U/S 50C OF THE ACT WITHOUT MAKING STATUTORY REFERENCE T O THE DVO AS AFFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. AS AGAINST THIS THE IMPUGNED TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS DELAY IS ONLY PROCEDURAL IN NATURE. HON'BLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK DECISION COLLECTOR, ITA NO.2570/KOL/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 PRASANTA KR. GHOSAL VS. ITO WD-22(1), K OL PA GE 2 LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) SETTLED THE LAW LONG BACK THAT THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE MUST PRE VAIL OVER ALL TECHNICAL ASPECTS. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THIS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER BEEN PRAYED FOR SEC. 50C(2) REFERENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I FIND NO MERIT IN THE INSTANT PLEA SINCE HON'BLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN (2014) 372 ITR 83 (CAL) SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SETTLES THE LAW THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER TO VALUATION ISSUE TO THE DVO EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RAISE SUCH PLEA. I TH EREFORE CONDONE THE ASSESSEES TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS DELAY GOING BY THE FOREGOING R EASONING AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROCEEDING AFRESH WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14/02/2020 SD/ - (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 14/02/2020 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-PRASANTA KR. GHOSAL, 115/2A, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, MULALI KOLKATA-700 01 4 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WD-22(1), 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI R D. KOLKATA-700 016 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ ',