2016 (5) TMI 90 - AT - Income Tax

Computing capital gain - Determination of value u/s 50C without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) - Held that - From the order of the learned Assessing Officer it is apparent that the AO has not referred the matter to the learned Departmental Valuation Officer for valuing the property as per section 50C(2) of the Act. The assessee had submitted before the learned Assessing Officer regarding the litigation involved in the title of the property which was not considered by the learned Assessing Officer. When the assessee had challenged the value determined by the learned Assessing Officer citing the various reasons it was the primary duty of the learned Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the learned Departmental Valuation Officer for valuation of the immovable property. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also simply brushed aside the contention of the assessee by stating in his order that at the time of assessment proceedings the assessee has not requested the learned Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the learned Departmental Valuation Officer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice the matter has to be referred back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with a direction to refer the matter to the learned Departmental Valuation Officer and thereafter pass an appropriate order as per law and merit after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

Issues:
1. Application of section 50C for computation of capital gains.
2. Consideration of market value and factors determining property value.
3. Failure to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer.
4. Adoption of guideline value by the Assessing Officer.
5. Litigation involved in the title of the property.
6. Request for de novo consideration by the authorized representative.

Issue 1: Application of section 50C for computation of capital gains
The appellant contested the application of section 50C by the Assessing Officer to ascertain capital gains, arguing that the property had inherent drawbacks not considered by the authorities. The appellant emphasized entering into an agreement for the property in 2004, challenging the guideline value applied by the Assessing Officer for the year 2009. The appellant further criticized the valuation process, claiming errors and lack of proper reasoning in determining the fair market value under section 50C.

Issue 2: Consideration of market value and factors determining property value
The appellant highlighted the failure of the Assessing Officer to consider various factors influencing the market price of the property, such as low rent, ongoing litigation, and disputes affecting the property's value. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer did not adequately assess the fair market value, leading to discrepancies between the declared value and the value determined by the authorities.

Issue 3: Failure to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer
The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer did not refer the property valuation matter to the Valuation Officer as required under section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant stressed the importance of involving the Valuation Officer to ensure accurate valuation of the property, especially when discrepancies exist between the declared value and the value determined by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 4: Adoption of guideline value by the Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer adopted the guideline value of the property for computing capital gains, following the provisions of section 50C. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the Assessing Officer correctly applied the guideline value as fixed by the Registering Authority, emphasizing the absence of any infirmity in the Assessing Officer's action.

Issue 5: Litigation involved in the title of the property
The appellant raised concerns regarding the litigation surrounding the property's title, arguing that the Assessing Officer overlooked these legal complexities while determining the property's market value under section 50C. The appellant emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment that considers all relevant factors, including legal disputes affecting the property's value.

Issue 6: Request for de novo consideration by the authorized representative
The authorized representative requested a de novo consideration of the matter, highlighting the Assessing Officer's failure to address the litigation involved in the property's title and the incorrect adoption of the market value. The representative urged for a fresh assessment by referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer to ensure a fair and accurate valuation process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the case back to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of involving the Valuation Officer, considering all relevant factors, including legal disputes, and ensuring a fair and accurate valuation process in compliance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

← Previous Next →