##PAGE1##

आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ,चÖडीगढ़

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 78/CHD/2025

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष(cid:91) / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Monica Bibbly Sood, The ITO,

# 131, Sector 4, Vs Ward 1(3),

MDC, Panchkula. Chandigarh.

èथायीलेखासं./PAN NO: ALSPS4022P

अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Harry Rikhy, Advocate

Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 28.01.2026

Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

HYBRID HEARING

O R D E R

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the

order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short

‘the CIT (A)’] dated 16.12.2024 passed for assessment year

2013-14.

2. Though the assessee has taken four grounds of appeal

but her solitary grievance revolves around a single issue,

namely, whether addition of Rs.17,80,299/- is sustainable in

ITA No.78/CHD/2025

A.Y.2013-24

2

her hand with the aid of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act,

1961 or not.

3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has sold an

Industrial Shed bearing No. 366, Industrial Area, Phase-2

Panchkula on 22.05.2012 for total consideration of

Rs.4,80,00,000/-. The AO was of the view that Stamp Duty

evaluation of this property was taken at Rs.4.97 Cr., hence,

this value deserves to be deemed as full sale value u/s 50C of

the Income Tax Act for computing Long Term Capital Gain.

Accordingly, he made the addition of Rs.17,80,299/-.

4. Appeal to the ld. CIT (Appeals) did not bring any relief to

the assessee.

5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention

towards the copy of the Sale Deed available on page No.22 to

28 of the Paper Book. He submitted that an Agreement to Sell

was executed in the month of March,2012. At the time of

Agreement, assessee has received part payment through

Account Payee Cheque on 12.03.2012. The assessee has

received six cheques on 12.03.2012 for consideration of Rs.5

lacs, Rs.5 lacs and four cheques for Rs.35 lacs. Thereafter,

ITA No.78/CHD/2025

A.Y.2013-24

3

on 15.03.2012, she again received cheques for a consideration

of Rs.30 lacs and Rs.20 lacs. Thus, according to the ld.

counsel for the assessee, her case falls within the 1st and 2nd

proviso attached to Section 50C of the Act which has been

declared as applicable with retrospective effect.

6. The ld. DR, on the other hand was unable to controvert

the contention of ld. counsel for the assessee.

7. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone

through the record carefully. Section 48 of the Income Tax Act

provides mode of computation of capital gains. It

contemplates that income chargeable under the head ‘capital

gains’ shall be computed by deducting from the full value of

the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer

of the capital asset following amounts, namely;

a) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in

connection with such transfer;

b) The cost of acquisition of the asset and cost of any

improvement thereto.

8. Section 50C of the Act is a deeming Section. It

contemplates that where consideration received or accruing as

a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being

ITA No.78/CHD/2025

A.Y.2013-24

4

land or building, or both, is less than the value adopted or

assessed by an authority of the State Government for the

purpose of charging the Stamp Duty, then such valuation

would be considered as a deemed full sale consideration

contemplated in Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. In other

words, the full value of consideration provided in Section 48

would be replaced by the amount on which Stamp Duty is

being charged from the assessee. The only condition is that

full value of sale consideration provided in Section 48 should

be lesser than the Stamp Duty valuation for the purpose of

charging the Stamp Duty. To this extent, there is no dispute

in the present appeal. The disp