9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration as per the provisions of Section 50C - Held that:- In the present case, the assessee has demonstrated that before the AO the Valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was disputed, therefore, the AO ought to have refer the issue to the Valuation Officer (DVO) in terms of provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act . Thus restore this issue to the file of AO to decide the issue afresh after obtaining the report from the DVO in the light of the decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Manjula Singhal vs. ITO (2011 (2) TMI 48 - ITAT, JODHPUR ). Thus, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes - I.T.A. No.1981/Ahd/2009, I.T.A. No.1969/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2015 - SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) And SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.DR For The Assessee : Shri S.N.Soparkar, AR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These cross-appeals by the Revenue and the Assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad [ CIT(A) in short] dated 17/04/2009 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. These appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that in earlier assessment, i.e. AY 2005-06, the AO has accepted his treatment as STCG. He further submitted that in the case of brother of the assessee, under the identical facts, the matter travelled upo the stage of Tribunal (ITAT B Bench Ahmedabad) in ITA No.706/Ahd/2009 for AY 2006- 07 in the case of ITO vs. Rajesh Balwantbhai Brahmbhatt, dated 31/08/2012, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour assessee. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. we find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that reads as under:- 3.3. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions as given by the A.R. of the appellant carefully. In support of his contentions, the A.R. has relied upon several judicial decisions, as also the Press Note issued by the CBDT clarifying the position vis - vis the draft of the Circular, which had been issued earlier than the Circular itself. It is also seen that the appellant was in full time employment of construction business to earn his livelihood and the transactions in shares or other financial securities were entirely unconnected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taxed as short term capital gain as has been offered by the assessee. The judgement of Hon ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Gopal Purohit as reported in 228 CTR 582 (Mum.) also supports the case of the assessee. Respectfully following all these judgements and in the facts of the present case, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld.CIT(A) in the present case. 4.2. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench, taking a consistent view, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, the Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 5. Now, we take up the assessee s appeal in ITA No.1969/Ahd/2009 for AY 2006-07. The only effective ground in this appeal which reads as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer to the effect that while computing income from long term capital gain, the value adopted for the purpose of payment of Stamp Duty shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act. 5.1. The ld.counsel for the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and 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 subsection (1) of section 16A of that Act. 6.1. In the present case, the assessee has demonstrated that before the AO the Valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was disputed, therefore, the AO ought to have refer the issue to the Valuation Officer (DVO) in terms of provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act. The Coordinate Bench under the identical facts, in the case of Manjula Singhal vs. ITO(supra), has held as under:- 9. The ingredients of the section are as under: (i) If the valuation adopted or assessed for stamp duty purposes is more than the stated consideration in the sale deed then, the valuation for stamp duty purposes will be deemed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
