9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de 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. - ITA No. 3412/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - H. S. Sidhu, JM, J. For the Appellant : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed and in the alternative it is also prayed that assessment as upheld by the CIT(A) be set aside with the directions as deemed fit by your honors to AO to refer matter to the DVO with proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. 3. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.9.2008 declaring NIL income. The AO selected the case of assessee for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ) was issued on 18.9.2009 which was served upon the assessee. However, notice u/s. 143(2)1/42(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee and in compliance of the same, Authorised Representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed Bills and vouchers and other relevant documents alongwith b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and added ₹ 15,66,220/- the difference in consideration accruing, as a result of transfer of capital assets and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority to be the full consideration received by the assessee as a result such transfer as income of the assessee vide order dated 30.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. 4. Aggrieved with the same, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 24.2.2014 upheld the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Now the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee draw my attention towards the provisions of section 50 and 50C(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant provisions of section 50C and 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are reproduced as under:- 50C(1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the stamp valuation authority) for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub0section (1) where (a) the assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Stamp Valuation Authority exceeded the fair market value of the property, then in terms of section 50C(2), the AO ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer instead of straightway deeming the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority as full value of consideration. In the present case it is not disputed that assessee has raised objection before the AO regarding the fair market value of the property sold on lower than the circle rate declared by the Registration Authority and also mentioned that the sale consideration so received has been adopted by the assessee for taxation purpose for which provisions of section 50C should not be adopted in the case of the assessee, as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew is supported by the various decision of the Tribunal including the (a) Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO (2013) 143 ITD 659 : 34 Taxmann.com 259 (Del); (b) Sarwan Kumar vs. ITO (2014) 150 ITD 289 : 45 Taxmann.com 16 (Del) and (c) Appadural Vijayaraghwan vs. JCIT (2014) 369 ITR 486 taxmann.com (Madras). 8.3 In my considered opinion, 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 up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
