9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 494 - AT - Income TaxLTCG on sale of land - assessee claimed that the stamp duty value exceeded the fair market value and requested a referral to the DVO - HELD THAT - Once the assessee objects to the value of property proposed to be adopted by the AO, then the AO is duly bound to refer the matter to the DVO in terms of Section 50C(2). In the instant case, the assessee had submitted that there were serious infirmities in the title to the property and hence the Jantri value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities did not represent the correct value of the property sold by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration. Therefore, when the assessee had raised a specific objection as to the value of the property adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities, on the ground that the title itself to the impugned property under consideration was defective, then, in our considered view, CIT(Appeals) has correctly held that the matter was required to be referred to the file of DVO. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Appeal of the Department is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against deletion of addition of LTCG by CIT(A) 2. Appeal against taxing of Long Term Capital Gain in A.Y. 2011-12 instead of A.Y. 2012-13 3. Correct application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal against deletion of addition of LTCG by CIT(A) The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad, regarding the addition of Rs. 1,82,33,314/- as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The dispute arose from the sale of a jointly owned plot of land, where the Stamp Valuation Authorities assessed the property value higher than the declared consideration. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The CIT(A) and ITAT had upheld the addition, but later, in a related case of a co-owner, it was observed that the DVO valuation was not sought, leading to reassessment proceedings for the assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the assessing officer should have referred the matter to the DVO for expert opinion as per Section 50C(2) of the Act. Issue 2: Appeal against taxing LTCG in A.Y. 2011-12 instead of A.Y. 2012-13 The appellant raised a plea for accepting the taxing of LTCG in A.Y. 2011-12 instead of A.Y. 2012-13. However, the assessing officer had considered the property value based on Stamp Valuation Authorities' assessment for A.Y. 2012-13. The dispute primarily revolved around the correct valuation of the property and the application of Section 50C of the Act. The CIT(A) held that the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO for valuation when serious objections were raised by the appellant regarding the Stamp Duty Valuation. Issue 3: Correct application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act The key legal aspect in this case was the correct application of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, which deals with the determination of the value of a capital asset for calculating capital gains. Section 50C(2) provides the option for the taxpayer to dispute the value assessed by the State Authority and request a referral to the DVO if the taxpayer claims that the value exceeds the fair market value. The judicial precedents cited emphasized that the AO is duty-bound to refer the matter to the DVO when the taxpayer objects to the stamp duty value for computing capital gains. The CIT(A) correctly applied these principles in the present case by directing the assessing officer to refer the valuation to the DVO due to serious objections raised by the assessee. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appeal of the Department. The decision was based on the correct interpretation and application of Section 50C of the Act and the legal precedents that establish the assessing officer's obligation to refer valuation disputes to the DVO when raised by the taxpayer.
|
