ITA No.297/RJT/2023
Parties Involved
Facts Summary
During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had disposed of property for Rs. 3,10,000/- for which the stamp duty authority adopted a value of Rs. 5,67,211/-. Considering the above facts, the assessing officer worked out the assessment at Rs. 2,57,211/- (Rs. 5,67,211- Rs. 3,10,000). As the valuation of the property exceeds 15% of the sale consideration of Rs. 3,10,000/-, the mandatory provision of section 50-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came into play. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the cost of acquisition, which was adopted as ZERO. As the mandatory provision of section 50-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no alternative but to adopt the sale consideration adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority at Rs. 5,67,211/-. The assessing officer also noticed that the assessee also failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the provision of section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Act 1961, therefore, the long-term capital gain was worked out by the assessing officer as under: Sale consideration adopted as above Rs. 5,67,211/- Less: Cost of acquisition adopted Rs. 000/- Long term capital gain Rs. 5,67,211/- Therefore, the assessing officer, after considering the material available on record, made the addition to the tune of Rs.5,67,211/-. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The …
Decision in favour of
Assessee
Legal Issues
- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of re-opening the assessment u/s.147 of the I T Act pass the order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I T Act is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.
- 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of reject the books of account and not consider the returned income shown Rs.1,84,570/- and wrongly apply the section 50C of the Act and adopted the value of the property as per the Stamp Duty Authority and added to the total income of Rs.5,67,210/- is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.
- 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of passing the order totally on surmises and conjecture basis and mentioned the facts in body of order which is very far away from the truth and against the facts of the case and against the rule of nature justice is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.
- 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of Charging the Interest u/s.234 A/B/C is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.
- 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.274 rws 271(1)(c) is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.
- 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.274 rws 271(1)(b) is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.
1 further legal issue analysed in the full judgement.
Judgment Outcome
Decided in favour of Assessee.
Precedents Relied Upon
8 precedents cited in this judgement.
Similar Judgements
Raghvendra Singh
Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-2019AllowedSwapnal Subhash Anbhavane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward
Bhushan Vasant Parelkar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai
Dilip Mohandas Devani vs. Income Tax Officer
Ahmedabad benchMrs. Geeta Narendra Gandhi Vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai
SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2019-20Partly AllowedDebasish Banerjee vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata
Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed