TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,80,000/- as capital gain u/s 50C of the Act. 4. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal." 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2019-20 declaring a total income of Rs. 37,13,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 27,85,291/- from sale of an immovable property. The AO processed assessee's return u/s 143(1) after assessing total income at Rs. 70,93,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 61,65,291/-. In effect, the AO made an addition/upward adjustment of Rs. 33,80,000/- in taxable capital gain/total income. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The facts apropos to the impugned addition/upward adjustment of Rs. 33,80,000/- made by AO can be fit in a narrow compass and require a very limited mention. The assessee sold an immovable property for actual consideration of Rs. 46,20,000/- and dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiate the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act the Assessing Officer has to initiate the proceedings u/s 143(2) of the Act as per the limitation period. Assessing Officer may proceed with other remedies available on record." (ii) Shri Inder Jeet Malik Vs. ADIT, ITA No. 1024/Del/2022 (ITAT, Delhi): "5. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The basic issue requiring consideration is, whether the addition made under section 50C(1) can fall within the ambit of adjustments provided under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. It is noticed; the following adjustments can be made while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act: "Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:-- (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely: - (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee objects to the stamp duty value, the valuation has to be referred to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) and in case the value determined by the DVO is lower than the stamp duty value, the value determined by DVO has to be considered for computing capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, subsection (1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By making an adjustment of the nature contemplated under sub-section (1) to section 50C, that too, by CPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory right given to the assessee to object to the value determined by stamp valuation authority. 8. Therefore, such type of adjustment, in my considered opinion, cannot be made under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. This is so because, at the stage of processing of return under section 143(1)(a), if such an adjustment is made, the assessee does not get an opportunity to object, as per section 50C(2) of the Act. More so, when conditions of the 1st and 2nd proviso to section 143(1)(a) are not complied. Therefore, I hold that the addition made by CPC under section 50C(1) of the Act by way of adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) is unsustainable. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich could have been considered by AO in terms of 2nd Proviso to section 143(1)(a). Therefore, when the assessee has not filed any response to AO, the assessee cannot be allowed to plead that the addition/upward adjustment made by AO was beyond the scope of section 143(1)/143(1)(a)(ii). Ld. DR pointed out that in the case of Amit Sabharwal (supra) relied by Ld. AR, the assessee filed response to AO, this fact is clearly discernible from first sentence of Para 4 of the order of ITAT (re-produced above). Further, in other two decision relied by Ld. AR, it is not ascertainable as to whether the assessee filed any response to the AO or not. But in any case, Ld. DR contended, when the assessee did not file response to AO, the assessee cannot take such plea now. (ii) Secondly, the CIT(A) has made following observation in impugned order: "6.6 Moreover, the appellant has contended that the matter had to be referred to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) and in case value determined by the DVO is lower than the stamp duty value, the value determined by DVO has to be considered capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. However, the appellant has contended....