9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has not been made on such valuation report but on a much lesser value of ₹ 1.25 crores and even if credit is given on account of all the objections raised by the assessee, the value of property adopted in the hands of the assessee is much lower than the value determined by the DVO. Hence we uphold the order the CIT (Appeals) in adopting the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation authorities as the fair market value of the property on the date of transfer in computing the income of the assessee also confirmed by ITAT. - Decided against assessee - ITA No.114 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 15-9-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ. For The Appellant : Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rinku Dahiya, Advocate For The Revenue : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. CM No.8043 CII of 2015 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.8044 CII of 2015 2. There is a delay of 75 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. ITA No.114 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the same to be commercial property situated on main GT road whereas while assessing the value of the property for the purpose of the stamp duty, the revenue authority considered the same to be residential area at Gandhi Nagar. The assessee pointed out that as per agreement of sale dated 6.11.2004, the property was shown to be residential and in occupation of the tenants. The assessee filed objections before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.12.2011, Annexure A.4 treated the sale consideration at ₹ 2,97,98,550/-. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) vide Annexure A.5 observed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer by adopting the sale consideration at ₹ 2,97,98,550/- was contrary to the provisions of Section 50C of the Act as the full value of consideration by the DVO could not exceed the value on which stamp duty was paid. The CIT(A) considered the sale value at ₹ 1,25,32,000/-. Still not satisfied, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 28.4.2014, Annexure A.6, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee. 5. We have heard learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this section, Valuation Officer shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, the expression assessable means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the stand of the DVO to have adopted commercial rates for valuing the said property as the assessment in the hands of the assessee had not been made on such valuation report but on a much lesser value of ₹ 1.25 crores and even if credit is given on account of all objections raised by the assessee, the value of the property adopted in the hands of the assessee is much lower than the value determined by the DVO. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- 17. In the facts of the present case the requirements of section 50C of the Act have been met with by the Assessing Officer by making reference to the Valuation Officer and in turn received valuation report of the property determining the value of property as on the date of sale. The learned AR for the assessee has vehemently pointed out various defects in the valuation report made by the valuation officer and the main grievance of the assessee is that the valuation officer has adopted higher rates i.e. the commercial as against the residential rates which resulted in higher valuation of the property. However, if we look at the case in entirety and considering the facts and circumstances of the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
