9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1227 - AT - Income TaxAddition made on the basis of circle rate u/s. 50C - Held that - In, the facts and circumstances of the present case attracts the provisions of section 50C(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, because the assessee has made the objection for invoking the provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act and the AO had not referred the Valuation Report to the DVO, as per provisions of section 50C(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and without doing so, the AO had made the addition in dispute which was wrongly been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained above, the assessee has made out his case for consideration as claimed in terms of provision of section 50C(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which has not been done by the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal including the Hon ble Madras High Court judgment in the case of Appadural Vijayaraghwan vs. JCIT (2014 (9) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ) set aside the matter in dispute to the file of the AO to work out the capital gain by invoking the provisions of section 50C(2) of the I.T. Act., after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues involved:
Application of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in determining the value of property for taxation purposes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment Proceedings and AO's Decision: The assessee filed its return of income declaring NIL income for the assessment year 2008-09. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had sold various plots below the circle rate, leading to the application of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The AO added the difference in consideration as income of the assessee, despite the assessee's contention that the prevailing market rate was lower. The AO did not refer the matter to the DVO for valuation, leading to the addition in the assessment order. 2. Appeal before CIT(A) and Tribunal: Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), who upheld the AO's decision. The assessee then approached the Tribunal challenging the order. The counsel for the assessee argued that the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO as per section 50C(2) since the assessee had filed a valuation report. The counsel cited relevant judgments supporting the assessee's position. 3. Tribunal's Decision: After considering the arguments and relevant provisions of section 50C and 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal found that the AO had not followed the mandatory requirement of referring the valuation to the DVO as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's objection to the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was not properly addressed by the AO or the CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to previous decisions supporting the assessee's position and set aside the matter to the AO for reevaluation, emphasizing the importance of following the provisions of section 50C(2) and providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard. 4. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to rework the capital gain by invoking the provisions of section 50C(2) after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in tax assessments, as mandated by the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
|
