TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Capital gains additions remanded for fresh assessment due to non-compliance with mandatory s. 50C(2) DVO reference</h1> ITAT Delhi-AT set aside the additions made as long-term capital gains on sale of two plots, arising from the difference between declared sale ... Addition of long term capital gains - sale of two plots - difference between the actual sale price vis a vis stamp value price - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel submits that both the lower authorities nowhere made any statutory reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act to the DVO which has been held as mandatory in nature in Sunil Kumar Agarwal [2014 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. This factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. This tribunal, therefore, finds merit in the assessee’s instant first and foremost legal argument and remits the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for his fresh adjudication as per law. It is made clear that the learned Assessing Officer’s consequential computation shall only assess the assessee’s capital gain qua the plots sold/transferred in the relevant assessment year. Ordered accordingly. Assessee's appeal concerned addition of long-term capital gains on sale of two plots, computed on the basis of stamp duty valuation under section 50C. The Assessing Officer treated the difference between the declared sale consideration of Rs. 32,00,000 and the stamp value of Rs. 36,13,000 (Rs. 11,46,139 as long-term capital gains) as taxable, which was sustained by the first appellate authority. In appeal, the assessee contended that no reference was made to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under section 50C(2), despite disputing the stamp valuation, and relied on the decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2014) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.), where such reference has been held to be mandatory. The Revenue did not rebut this factual position. The Tribunal accepted the legal contention, holding that the failure to make a statutory reference under section 50C(2) vitiated the computation. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer 'for his fresh adjudication as per law,' clarifying that the computation 'shall only assess the assessee's capital gain qua the plots sold/transferred' in the relevant year. All other issues were left open.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
