PRANAB KUMAR DANA,BANKURA V. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), BANKURA

ITA 539/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pranab Kumar Dana against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-Gwalior, which was passed in response to an intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention in the appeal was the incorrect adoption of the stamp duty value as the sale consideration for computing Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 50C of the Act. The assessee argued that the actual sale consideration should have been adopted instead. Additionally, the assessee sought a deduction under section 54EC for investment in NHAI bonds, which was initially not allowed. The Tribunal noted the need for a fair valuation process and directed a reference to the DVO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772256 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 539/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pranab Kumar Dana Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Bankura (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ALDPD0873E Appearances: Assessee represented by : D.K. Sen, AR. Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborty, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 25-June-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 25-August-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-Gwalior [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2019-20 dated 20.02.2025, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 07.07.2020. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, u/s 250 partly confirming the deemed order u/s 143(1) of the CPC, Bengaluru is bad in fact and in law. 2. For that the Ld. Appellate Authority, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the matter, is not justified in not making reference to the DVO as demanded by the appellant u/s 50C(2) r.w.s. 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 539/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pranab Kumar Dana. 3. For that the Ld. Appellate Authority, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in passing a purportedly dubious order contrary to the principles of natural justice. 4. For that the appellant reserves his right to add to, to alter, to amend the grounds taken and to adduce paper/s and document/s at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act and in the intimation issued, an addition was made u/s 50C of the Act. Further, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54EC of the Act which was also not allowed. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) went through the intimation issued and has given his finding as under and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee: “5.0 Decision on Ground No. 1 to 3: I have carefully considered facts of case and order passed by Ld. AO against which appeal has been preferred. I have gone through appellant's submission, Form 35, intimation u/s 143(1) and provisions of relevant section and rules. 5.1 It is seen that the appellant is an individual and filed its Return of Income on 29.08.2019 for A.Y. 2019-20 declaring total income of Rs. 1,42,500/-. The Return was processed u/s 143(1) on 07.07.2020 determining income of Rs. 14,25,830/-. The Appellant submitted that the while computing the income from Long Term Capital Gain the stamp duty value has been adopted as sale consideration instead of the actual sale consideration. The Appellant has requested that the actual sale consideration the adopted for computing the Long Term Capital Gain. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable. Since, capital gains has to be computed as per the provisions of section 50C. Since, the stamp duty value of the said property is more than the actual sale consideration the stamp duty value has to be adopted for computing the LTCG. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Further, the Appellant has requested that deduction u/s 54EC amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/- being investment in NHAI bond be allowed. Therefore, for limited purposes for verification of contentions raised by the appellant, AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and after due verification, if the same is found to be correct then allow deduction u/s 54EC/-. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 Decision of ground No. 4: During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has not added/altered/modified any grounds of appeal; therefore, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 539/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pranab Kumar Dana. 7.0 In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. It was argued by the Ld. AR that in view of the specific provision of section 50C(2) r.w.s. 55A of the Act the matter should have been referred to the DVO in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Our attention was drawn to page 2 of the appeal order of the Ld. CIT(A) which contains the grounds of appeal and page 4thereof. The Ld. AR vehemently argued and submitted that the property may be referred to the DVO as per law. 5. We have considered the submissions made. Since the assessee is disputing the valuation of the property and there was no occasion at the time of processing of return to make such a request, and before the Ld. CIT(A) all the opportunities allowed were not availed, therefore, in order to be fair to both the assessee and the Ld. AO, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside with the direction that the Ld. CIT(A) himself refer to the DVO or the Ld. AO may be directed to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO and the appeal should be decided after considering the report of the DVO in accordance with law. 6. In the result, in view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 25.08.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 539/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pranab Kumar Dana. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Pranab Kumar Dana, Keranibandh, Bishnupur Road, P.O. and Dist.-Bankura, West Bengal, 722101. 2. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Bankura. 3. Addl/JCIT(A)-Gwalior. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "