9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (2) of sec. 50C of the Act. We find that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has obtained the report from DVO, therefore this judgment will not helpful to the assessee. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. Chandni Bhuchar reported in (2010 (1) TMI 502 - Punjab and Haryana High Court) decided the issue relating to addition made u/s. 48 on account of unexplained investment in the property. In the instant case, it is a case of deciding the FMV, therefore this judgment also will not helpful to the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) are justified in their action. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 142/PNJ/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2015 - SHRI P. K. BABNSAL, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Department By : Shri Anand S. Marathe-DR O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, J.M This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), Belgaum dated 11/02/2014 for the A.Y. 2006-07. 2. The following grounds are raised by the assessee:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in passing the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing as under:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant and also perused the assessment order. The land sold by the assessee for a consideration of ₹ 61/- lakhs by the appellant was valued at ₹ 92.65 lakhs by the Stamp Valuation Authority for stamp duty purposes. At the request of the appellant, a reference was made by the A.O to the Departmental Valuation Officer u/s 50C(2) for determining the valuation of the land. The D.V.O. vide his order dated 17.12.2008 determined the FMV of the above property at ₹ 1,50,11,400/- which was objected to be the appellant before the A.O. However, as per the provisions of Section 50C(3),the A.O adopted the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority for computing the Capital Gains Tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the Capital Gains Tax at ₹ 74,48,166/-. The appellant has again during the appellate proceedings objected to the adoption of value of land as determined by the Stamp Valuation officer, however, no cogent reasons or evidence for that has been furnished by the assessee. The appellant has already availed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A), Belgaum. The appellant submitted before the CIT(A) that the value adopted by the SVO and DVO were based on general factors whereas the value of the property declared by the appellant was the actual consideration and there was no consideration received over and above it. The appellant also got the property valued by a government approved valuer who after considering various factors of the property such as area of the property, location, developable area as per government rules etc., concluded that the value is ₹ 60 lakhs. All the details were furnished before the CIT(A) vide written submission as attached. The CIT(A) in his order did not accept the contention of the appellant but instead also gave a finding that the appellant has not pointed out the defects in the DVO's report or in the SVO's valuation and no evidence whatsoever has been furnished by the appellant to buttress its case. . Whereas this is not correct as the appellant has submitted a written submission as enclosed along with supporting documents and case law. Therefore, this appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The appellant submits herein that DVO's valuation is not acceptable as it is base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken as FMV for such transfer. If the assessee did not dispute the value of SVA in any appeal or revision, the valuation of the SVA becomes final. Therefore, in this case, the Assessing Officer has taken the FMV as decided by the SVA, therefore the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) are justified in their action. 7. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties. It is relevant to quote sec. 50C which reads 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 [or assessable] 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 [or assessable] 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 sub-section (1), where- (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
