9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration, had however failed to refer the matter to the valuation officer for ascertaining the same, therefore, the reworking of the LTCG by him not being in conformity with the mandate of law cannot be accepted. We thus are of a strong conviction that as the very mandate of law prescribed under the statute had whimsically been bypassed by the A.O, therefore, the consequential addition of ₹ 72,00,000/- made by him on the basis of the impugned reworking of the capital gains cannot be sustained, and deserves to be deleted. We set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and delete the addition made - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 493/Asr/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2019 - Shri. N.K. Saini, Vice President And Shri. Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri. Sandeep Vijh, CA For the Revenue : Shri M.S. Parmar, D.R ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, dated 27.07.2018, which in turn arises from the assessment framed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short I.T. Act ), dated 15.12.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of ₹ 1 crore may not be adopted in terms of Sec. 50C(1) for working out the LTCG on the sale of the property under consideration. In reply, the assessee in order to impress upon the A.O that the circle value/segment rate of the property under consideration could not be adopted for computing the capital gains , therein submitted that the property under consideration suffered from locational disadvantages and also did not have proper frontage. It was the claim of the assessee that the front portion of the property was blocked by two shops which covered 24 feet (out of the total front width of 58 feet). Further, it was submitted by the assessee that the property sold by him was a basement property which had a much lower value as compared to the ground floor. Apart therefrom, it was submitted by him that as the front portion of the property was blocked, therefore, the entire building was not visible from the road end. In order to fortify his aforesaid claim, the assessee had also placed on record the drawing of the plot and the photographs in support thereof. In sum and substance, the assessee taking support of the locational and other disadvantages suffered by the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, it was obligatory on the part of the A.O to have referred the matter to the valuation cell, therein relied upon an order of a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal viz., ITAT Delhi Bench A , New Delhi in the case of ITO, Ward2(1), Moradabad vs. M/s Aditya Narayan Verma (HUF) [ITA N. 4166/Del/2013; dated 07.06.2017]. It was submitted by the learned A.R that in the aforementioned order the Tribunal while upholding the order of the CIT(A) had observed that if the A.O despite specific objection raised by the assessee that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeded the Fair market Value of the property as on the date of transfer, however fails to refer the matter for valuation to the Valuation Officer, then the order of the A.O would be invalid to the said extent. 7. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (for short D.R) relied on the order passed by the lower authorities. It was submitted by the learned D.R that the lower authorities had rightly adopted the circle value/segment rate of the aforementioned property for computing the capital gain under Sec. 50C of the I.T Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation officer for ascertaining the same. However, in the case before us, we find that the A.O despite a specific objection to the said effect having been raised by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, however dispensed with the said statutory obligation and failed to refer the valuation of the property under consideration to the valuation officer. In our considered view, the aforesaid methodology adopted by the A.O for reworking the LTCG not being in accord with the mandate of law, thus cannot be subscribed to on our part. We find that a similar issue had came up before a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal viz., ITAT A Bench, Delhi in the case of ITO, Ward2(1), Moradabad vs. M/s Aditya Narayan Verma (HUF) [ITA N. 4166/Del/2013; dated 07.06.2017]. As observed by us hereinabove, in the said case, the Tribunal had after deliberating at length on the scope and gamut of section 50C(2) had upheld the order of the CIT(A) and concluded that if the A.O despite specific objection raised by the assessee that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeded the Fair market Value of the property as on the date of transfer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
