9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue declared by the assessee exceeded value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Officer there was no question of referring valuation of plot to Valuation Officer by the AO by way of a reference u/s 50C of the Act. In the case on hand the valuation as per Stamp Value Authorities is same or equal to the sale consideration received by the assessee. Provision of Sec. 50C sub-section (1) says if the sale consideration is less than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities the value so adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities shall be deemed to be the full value consideration. Here in the case on hand the assessee has reported the sale consideration which is equal to the stamp valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities in othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the property estimated by the Valuation Officer at Rs. 1,20,26,140/- and the actual sale consideration and circle rate of Rs. 70,30,000/- shown by the appellant, is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that reference to Valuation Officer u/s 50C is bad in law for the reason that the sale consideration of the property is not less than the circle rate. The Ld. Counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Shanubhai M Patel (73 taxmann.com 138) submits that when the sale consideration of the property is more than the circle rate the reference to Valuation Officer to find out the fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gains. In the assessee s case, the sale consideration received on transfer of capital asset at Rs. 70,30,000/-. The stamp valuation/circle rate of the said properties was also valued at Rs. 70,30,000/- for the purpose of Stamp Duty by the Stamp Valuation Authorities. 6. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Shanubhai M Patel (supra) held that where the assessee sold plot of land since the value declared by the assessee exceeded value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Officer there was no question of referring valuation of plot to Valuation Officer by the AO by way of a reference u/s 50C of the Act. While holding so the Hon ble High Court held as under: 4. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee showed the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority. Adverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly the valuation made by the assessee exceeds the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. The condition precedent for invoking subsection (1) of section 50C of the Act is, therefore, clearly not satisfied. Consequently, there was no question of referring the valuation of the plots in question to the Valuation Officer. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal being in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 50C of the Act, does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law. 7. The SLP filed by the Revenue against this judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
