Navin Kumar Nathan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-2(1), Chennai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Navin Kumar Nathan, sold two immovable properties for Rs. 1,22,39,737/- and deposited Rs. 1,17,00,000/- in the bank account but did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer (A.O) reopened the assessment and computed the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 43,49,521/-. The assessee appealed against the confirmation of the addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The assessee argued that the A.O should have referred the valuation to the valuation cell and that the assessee could not have invested up to Rs. 1.80 Cr. as per stamp valuation. The Departmental Representative argued that the A.O correctly invoked Section 50C of the Act and the order of CIT(A) should be upheld.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the A.O correctly invoked Section 50C of the Act without referring the valuation to the valuation cell?
• 2. Whether the assessee could have invested up to Rs. 1.80 Cr. as per stamp valuation?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Meera Sonthalia vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Asansol

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Debasish Banerjee vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-18, Income Tax Office, Jhandewalan, New Delhi Vs. Snerea Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Shrey Properties Pvt. Ltd.

• Sarayu Krishna Kamat vs DCIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench 'G', Mumbai benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Bhawani Apartment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(2)

  Kolkata benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Mukesh Vaikunthlal Mehta vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2011-2012Partly Allowed