9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o make a reference to the DVO under section 50C. Such explanation was considered to be the highest prevailing market price and as such it was directed that reference should have been made to the DVO under section 50C. In the present case of the assessee, the assessee had made a specific statement before A.O. that since the land in question is an agricultural land or that assessee suffered capital loss, therefore, provisions of Section 50C are not applicable. The assessee has never pleaded such fact before the A.O. for making any reference to the DVO under section 50C therefore, this decision would not support the case of the assessee. In the absence of production of the Purchase Deed and source of construction made on the impugned property, would clearly show that the valuation report have been manipulated by assessee just to avoid payment of capital gains tax to the Revenue Department. The valuation report is of no reliance.- Decided against assessee. - ITA. No. 158/Del./2020 - - - Dated:- 23-10-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Satyeh Sethi, Advocate. For the Revenue : Shri R.K. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mipteran pests, trips, ants, cockroaches etc., which cause structural damage and crop damage. The part area is used to provide shelter to the live stock. The assessee without prejudice to the above explanation also submitted that in case the property in question is considered as non-agricultural land as mentioned in the notice, the assessee would suffered huge capital loss, the computation of which is attached and referred to in the assessment order claiming capital loss of ₹ 1,60,17,230/-. The A.O. also reproduced the valuation report in the assessment order in which total value of the land + construction was valued by the Valuer at ₹ 20,83,000/- [₹ 75,090/- + ₹ 20,07,495.00]. 3.2. The A.O. however, did not accept the contention of assessee and noted that assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. The assessee initially claimed the property in question as agricultural land, but, later on changed the stand and claimed as capital asset and long term capital loss on the sale of the property at ₹ 1,60,17,230/-. Thus, the assessee wanted to avoid taxation. In valuation report property is described as immovable property. The assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. 4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of the I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 for admission of the additional evidence. Such additional evidence are (1) Intkal (Mutation) Dated 21.03.1981 of land at Mohal Dhagog, Tehsil Simla [Rural] (2) Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 of land at Mohal Dhagog, Tehsil, Simla (Rural) (3) Affidavit of Assessee Dated 19.08.2020. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that these additional evidences are necessary for deciding the issue involved in the present appeal, therefore, same may be admitted in the interest of justice. 4.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also submitted that A.O. has not given any benefit of indexed cost of the construction raised in the property. He has submitted that it is not in dispute that during assessment year under appeal assessee has sold her 1/3rd share in the land in question for a sum of ₹ 65 lakhs. There existed a building (residential) that was constructed prior to 1980 which fact is mentioned in the sale deed as well as in the Nakal Intkal. The land was acquired by assessee s father late Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elow and referred to valuation report submitted by assessee [PB-16] in which Valuer has mentioned year of construction as 1980 approximately and at PB-16 Valuer has mentioned Report of valuation of immovable [other than agricultural land, plantations, forest, mines and quarries]. He has, therefore, submitted that since the Valuation Officer himself has mentioned in a report of the valuation of immovable property other than agricultural land , therefore, assessee has no case seeking for deletion of the addition. The Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee has not objected to the stamp valuation mentioned in the Sale Deed under section 50C of the I.T. Act, therefore, there were no need for the A.O. to make any reference to the DVO. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The assessee filed an application for admission of the additional evidences above. It is well settled Law that if additional evidences are relevant to the matter in issue and goes to the root of the matter, such, additional evidences could be admitted for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. However, in the present case such ingredients are not satisfied by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an agricultural land. The assessee further claimed that the property in question have been constructed by father of the assessee, but, did not disclose as to in which year the property have been constructed by father of the assessee and no source of the investment in property have been explained. The valuation report filed by assessee shows year of construction as 1975, but, the Valuer has opined that year of commencement of construction is the year 1980 approximately. It is not clarified by Learned Counsel for the Assessee as to how the Valuer has reported that the property in question have been constructed in the year 1980. It may also be noted here that in the Sale Deed Dated 11.01.2016, through which property was sold by assessee, it is mentioned that the structure in the property have been built before 1990. Thus, there is a vague statement made at every stage with regard to construction raised in the property in question. There is a difference in the value of the land and cost of construction as mentioned in the valuation report submitted by assessee and the Sale Deed. Nothing is, therefore, established by assessee as to when the construction was raised in the property and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 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 . 9.1. Sub-Section (2) of Section 50C of the I.T. Act provides as under : 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 by the stamp valuation authority under subsection (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer 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, ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Valuer has visited the property on 10.01.2015, but, prepared report in December 2015 and the report bears year 2016. There were no reason for the assessee to remain silent before the Stamp Valuation Authority at the time of registration of the Sale Deed because she could object to the valuation of the property at ₹ 1,87,76,000/-. The assessee should have raised an objection in such circumstances before the Sub-Registrar also that valuation of the property for stamp duty purposes would not be same as have been mentioned above. These facts clearly show that assessee has been making different statements at different stages in order to avoid payment of capital gains tax. Since the assessee has not objected to the stamp valuation under section 50C of the I.T. Act before A.O. when A.O. has given specific show cause notice to the assessee under section 50C of the I.T. Act, A.O. was not obliged to make a reference to the DVO under section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Orders of the various Tribunals relied upon by Learned Counsel for the Assessee clearly distinguishable on facts in which the assessee has made a specific explanation that valuation adopted for the purpose of stamp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
