9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 922 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - taking into consideration the jantri value of the land sold by the petitioner - as submitted that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment are erroneous inasmuch as section 50C of the Act does not require the land to be valued at the jantri rate, but as per the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority - HELD THAT - Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue Notice, returnable on 27.01.2020. By way of ad-interim relief, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 31.03.2019 issued under section 148 of the Act for assessment year 2012-13 are hereby stayed.
Issues: Reopening of assessment based on valuation discrepancies and audit objections
In this judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the petitioner challenged the reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer based on valuation discrepancies and audit objections. The petitioner's advocate highlighted that the Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment by considering the jantri value of the land sold, leading to a discrepancy in the sale value calculation. The advocate pointed out the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority should be the basis for determining the full value of consideration in such cases. The Stamp Valuation Authority had valued the land at a higher amount compared to the consideration price mentioned in the sale deed. The petitioner valued the land based on the Stamp Valuation Authority's assessment, not the jantri rate. The petitioner argued that the reasons for reopening the assessment were erroneous as section 50C does not mandate valuation at the jantri rate. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the audit objections, which formed the basis for the reopening, were not accepted by the Assessing Officer, casting doubt on the justification for believing that income had escaped assessment. In response to the submissions, the court issued a notice returnable on a specified date and stayed further proceedings related to the assessment for the relevant year. Direct service of the order was permitted.
|
