Vasantiben Chimanbhai Patel Vs. DCIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Vasantiben Chimanbhai Patel, is engaged in the business of Dairy Farming and Brokerage. She filed her original Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 19-10-2012, declaring a total income of Rs.3,80,720/-. Information was received that a plot of land located at Jambuua, Baroda in R.S. No. 422 measuring 6889 Sq. Mtr. was sold for consideration of Rs.1,02,15,682/-, whereas the stamp valuation authority valued the property at Rs.4,23,68,750/- for stamp duty purposes. The assessee holds a 15% share in the plot of land. The difference in stamp duty valuation was brought to tax invoking Section 50C of the Act by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 27-11-2018. The assessee filed a return on 12-01-2019 declaring the same total income of Rs.3,96,760/- and claimed that the property on sale was already declared as business income, hence no question of invoking Section 50C arose. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of business income as no opening stock of land or closing stock of land was shown by the assessee in the Return of Income. The difference in sale consideration and the assessee's 15% share of Rs. 63,53,312/- was added under Section 50C of the Act and tax was demanded thereon.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) grievously erred in confirming the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act.
• 2. Whether the NFAC grievously erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the sale of surplus immovable property as Capital Gains instead of accepting it as Business income, as declared by the appellant.
• 3. Whether the NFAC grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.63,55,312/- made under Section 50C of the Act.
• 4. Whether the NFAC grievously erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the full value of sale consideration as valued by the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) in the case of co-owners of the same property.
• 5. Whether the NFAC grievously erred in directing the Assessing Officer to give a deduction in respect of the Cost of Acquisition of the property.
• 6. Whether the NFAC grievously erred in accepting the fact that the addition made by the Assessing Officer has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already disclosed the surplus as Business Income in the return filed.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Bhushan Vasant Parelkar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

• Mrs. Geeta Narendra Gandhi Vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Amit Girdharbhai Patel vs. ACIT

  Ahmedabad bench

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

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2011-2012Partly Allowed

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

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Swapnal Subhash Anbhavane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward