9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut these were never considered nor adjudicated upon. Keeping in view the entirety of facts in mind, we are of the considered view that the above objections cannot be decided at this stage because this being a technical issue. Moreover, the CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order as noted above. Let the matter be referred back to the file of the AO, who will refer the matter back to the file of the DVO to consider the objections raised by the assessee and then determine the fair market value as per law. Hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities i.e., of the AO and that of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for reconsideration of the objections of the assessee. Disallowance of improvement cost, dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee raised vide letter dated 27.11.2019. For this, assessee has raised various grounds. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration sold property in survey No.507/2A and survey No.489/1 2, old patta No.140, new patta No.5112 in bearing old No.1, New door No.16, Plot No.52 situated in Balaji Nagar, Thirumullaivoyal, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai admeasuring an extent of 25,827 sq.ft., out of 32,480 sq.ft., for a total sale consideration of ₹ 4.40 crores but the Sub-Registrar valued the property for the purpose of stamp duty collection i.e., as per circle rates at ₹ 5.95 crores. The AO required the assessee to explain why provisions of Section 50C of the Act cannot be invoked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opt the value given by the DVO and enhance the sale consideration. Aggrieved against the order of CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Smt. Srividya Sivaram, Chartered Accountant, took us through Ground Nos.1 to 5 and stated that the DVO has not given proper opportunity to the assessee before determining fair market value of the property vide its letter inspite of the fact that the assessee objected the method of valuation and copy of objection was referred by ld.AR. The ld.AR for the assessee took us through the objections filed with the DVO dated 27.11.2019 which was actually filed only on 29.11.2019. The ld.AR for the assessee read out the objections, which is being r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 27.11.2019. When it was pointed out that the DVO has determined the fair market value of the property vide report dated 28.11.2019, whereas the assessee has filed his letter raising objections to the DVO vide letter dated 27.11.2019 which was filed only on 29.11.2019, the ld.AR stated that in any case, the principles of natural justice have been violated. But, it was pointed out to ld.AR that the preliminary valuation was intimated to the assessee as noted by DVO in Para 7 i.e., preliminary valuation and the assessee has not availed of the opportunity provided by the DVO. The relevant para of DVO s report reads as under:- 7.0 PRELIMINARY VALUATION 7.1 Intimation to assessee : The preliminary valuation report was sent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not comment as regard to the objections filed by the assessee before CIT(A) and further stated that the CIT(A) referring the matter to DVO is in violation of provisions of the Act and he stated that the CIT(A) has no power to refer the matter to DVO as per Section 50C of the Act. In view of the above, the ld. senior DR stated that the orders of the lower authorities be confirmed. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Admitted facts are that the DVO has valued the property at ₹ 5,98,96,000/- as against sale consideration declared by the assessee in sale deed at ₹ 4.40 crores and property valuation as per stamp duty is at ₹ 5.95 crores. Admittedly, the DVO has provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -[A] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the improvement cost of ₹ 23,00,000/- claimed by the assessee on the property sold. 7. The learned CIT-[A] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the deduction towards brokerage expenses of ₹ 8,80,000/- incurred for the property sold. 8. The learned CIT-[A] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the construction expenses of ₹ 12,99,124/- inspite of the fact that, the same are related to the labour, sand and other miscellaneous payments for constructing the new house. 8. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has considered these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
