Provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act while making the addition to capital gains

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM

ITA Nos.1686, 1687, 1688, 1293 & 1294/AHD/2017

Assessment Year: (2012-13) 
(Virtual Court Hearing) 

Baldevbhai T. Patel,
Plot No.2, Hari Om Niwas, Opp:
Sunlight Complex, Anand Mahal
Road, Surat.

Vs. 

The ITO, Ward-1(3)(6),
Surat.
PAN/GIR No.: ACIPP3610K

Jayantibhai T. Patel,
Plot No.2, Hari Om Niwas, Opp:
Sunlight Complex, Anand Mahal
Road, Surat.

Vs. 

The ITO, Ward-1(3)(7),
Surat.
PAN/GIR No.: ACIPP3613L

Dineshbhai T. Patel,
Plot No.2, Hari Om Niwas, Opp:
Sunlight Complex, Anand Mahal
Road, Surat.

Vs. 

The ITO, Ward-1(3)(6),
Surat.
PAN/GIR No.: ACIPP3614P

Balvantbhai N. Patel,
327, Kandi Faliya, Dumas,
Surat-395007.

Vs. 

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(1),
Surat.
PAN/GIR No.: ACKPP5075C

Keshiben N. Patel,
231, Dumas, Surat-394550.
(Appellant) 

Vs. 

The ITO, Ward-2(3)(2),
Surat.
PAN/GIR No.: CKYPP7019Q
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Mehul Patel, Advocate.
Revenue by : Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 19/05/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 14/06/2021 

O R D E R

PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These five appeals filed by different assessees, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2012-13, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common, identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as facts narrated in ITA No.1686/AHD/2017 for AY.2012-13, in the case of Baldevbhai T. Patel have been taken into consideration for deciding these appeals en masse.

3. The grounds of appeals raised by the assessee in lead case in ITA No.1686/AHD/2017, for AY.2012-13 are as follows:

“(1) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO has erroneously invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act while making the addition to capital gains.

(2) That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the appellant was not provided the material gathered and relied by AO to make addition to Capital Gains, and thereby not providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity to rebut the same.

(3) That on facts and in law, it ought to have been held that the cost of acquisition and FMV as on 01/04/1981, could not have been varied by simply relying on case of another assessee.

(4) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition to Capital Gains by directing the AO to adopt the FMV as on 1/4/1981 @ Rs.71.60 per sq. mt. adopted by the DVO in case of another assessee, as against Rs.1,400/- per sq.mt. adopted by the appellant on the basis of Approved Valuer’s Report. 

To know more in details find the attachment file