9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT has written to the District Registrar requesting for information in the case of the assessee. In response to the letter of the DCIT, the District Registrar had provided the certified copy of the guideline value fixed by the Government of Karnataka, covering the area (in vernacular). Admittedly, the impugned property is situated on Subadar Chatram Road between Anand Rao Circle and Seshadripuram. This fact is also confirmed by the AO in the remand report dated 30.03.2018 submitted to the first appellate authority. On perusal of the letter of District Registrar dated 29.10.2020, along with the relevant pages of guideline value attached along with the letter of District Registrar, it is clear that the impugned property which is locate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solitary effective ground, which reads as follow:- 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and in fact by adjudicating the valuation of the immovable property for the purpose of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, himself and without referring the valuation to the DVO, as is mandate by this section. 4. Brief facts in relation to the above ground are as follow: The assessee had sold 7,500 sq.ft. of property for a sum of ₹ 7,50,00,000 (₹ 10,000 per sq.ft.). The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 50C of the I.T.Act, proposed to take gross sale consideration at ₹ 10,92,00,000 (₹ 14,560 per sq.ft.). The assessee had stated before the A.O. that there were two entries of Subedhar Chatram Road in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property at a rate of ₹ 10,000 per sq.ft., which is much more than the guideline value of ₹ 7,280 per sq.ft. Without prejudice to the above contention, the assessee had also requested the A.O. to refer to the Valuation Officer in terms of section 50C(2) of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the contentions raised by the assessee with regard to the location of the property by stating that the purchaser who was an MNC would not pay a single penny more towards the stamp duty. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 50C of the I.T.Act and taking the sale consideration at ₹ 10.92 crore, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reby allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A) in accepting the sale consideration at ₹ 7.50 crore instead of ₹ 10.92 crore adopted by the A.O., the Department has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the course of hearing of this appeal, both the learned AR and learned DR were directed to obtain and place on record an endorsement from the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar, prescribing the actual value of the impugned property, viz., Kino Theatre , situated at No.215/1, Subedar Chatram Road, Nehrunagar, Bengaluru as on 30.06.2012. In this context, the learned AR had placed on record the following documents, viz., - (i) Copy of letter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trict Registrar, it is clear that the impugned property which is located at Subedar Chatram (SC) Road between Seshadripuram and Anand Rao Circle is governed by entry No.157, where the guideline value fixed as on 30.06.2012 was much less than ₹ 10,000 per sq.ft. adopted by the assessee in the sale deed. Therefore, the CIT(A) s order accepting the sale consideration of ₹ 7.50 crore disclosed by the assessee in her sale deed is upheld as correct and in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. ITA No.1611/Bang/2018 : Assessee s appeal 9. In the course of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the assessee is seeking to avail Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as dismissed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
