2023 (3) TMI 979 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain computation - stamp duty valuation adopted by authorities - value adopted by government authorities for levy of stamp duty on transfer of land - AO made additions by invoking provisions of Section 50C - HELD THAT - The assessee has filed two comparable of sale deeds which are claimed to be in vicinity and within the same time period when assessee sold his land, which requires verification by the authorities below . Since the assessee is disputing the value adopted by government authorities for levy of stamp duty on transfer of land, Section 50C(2) shall come into play and the matter may be required to be referred to DVO as is provided u/s 50C(2). The orders of the authorities below are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for framing denovo assessment on merit in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of submissions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
2. Assessment of capital gains based on stamp duty value.
3. Non-referral to the Valuation Officer u/s 50C(2).

Summary:

1. Non-consideration of Submissions by CIT(A):
The assessee argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not delivering judgment on each point raised in the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, and written submissions. The CIT(A) was accused of ignoring replies and annexures filed in response to notices u/s 142(1) and not applying sub-section (2) of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Assessment of Capital Gains Based on Stamp Duty Value:
The primary issue was the assessment of capital gains based on the stamp duty value. The assessee sold land for Rs. 5,00,000, but the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 15,78,000. The AO invoked provisions of Section 50C, leading to an addition of Rs. 14,61,600 to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition but directed the AO to re-compute the Indexed cost of acquisition, acknowledging an error in the initial calculation.

3. Non-referral to the Valuation Officer u/s 50C(2):
The assessee contended that the authorities failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer (DVO) as required u/s 50C(2) despite the challenge to the stamp duty valuation. The assessee provided two comparative sale deeds to demonstrate that the market value was lower than the stamp duty value, which was not considered by the AO or CIT(A).

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) did not consider the comparative sale deeds provided by the assessee, nor did they refer the matter to the DVO as required u/s 50C(2). The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for denovo assessment, directing that the AO should consider the comparative sale deeds and, if necessary, refer the matter to the DVO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with no comments on the merits of the additions.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment, including the potential referral to the DVO u/s 50C(2).