TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns CIT (A) order on capital gain, citing lack of consideration and natural justice violation.</h1> <h3>Rina Surendra Patel Versus ITO-Ward 19 (2) (2), Mumbai</h3> Rina Surendra Patel Versus ITO-Ward 19 (2) (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT (A) rejecting claims of sales consideration for computing capital gain, consideration of Stamp Duty Valuation u/s 50C without referral to Valuation Officer, assessing capital gain for wrong assessment year.Summary:Issue 1: Rejection of sales consideration for computing capital gainThe assessee appealed against the CIT (A)'s rejection of claims of sales consideration for computing capital gain. The assessee had acquired a flat and later sold it, declaring a capital loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed discrepancies in the valuation of the property and invoked section 50C of the Act. The assessee objected to the valuation, citing disadvantages of the property. The CIT (A) dismissed the objections for not invoking section 50C(2) specifically. The Tribunal set aside the appeal, citing lack of proper consideration of the assessee's objections and principles of natural justice.Issue 2: Failure to refer to Valuation Officer u/s 50CThe assessee contended that the AO failed to refer the valuation to the Valuation Authorities as required u/s 50C(2) of the Act. The Tribunal found that while there was no explicit request for referral in the assessment order, the CIT (A) did acknowledge the assessee's objections regarding valuation discrepancies. The Tribunal deemed the dismissal of the objections without proper consideration as a violation of natural justice and ordered the grounds to be set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.Issue 3: Assessment of capital gain for wrong assessment yearThe assessee raised concerns about the taxability of capital gains in the wrong assessment year due to discrepancies in stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal acknowledged the relevance of the valuation discrepancies and the need for proper consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of fair adjudication and adherence to legal procedures.This judgment highlights the significance of procedural fairness, proper consideration of objections, and adherence to legal provisions in tax assessments, ensuring justice for the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
