9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action of purchase of immovable property by the assessee, as the stamp duty value for the purposes of registration was more than the value of actual consideration paid by the assessee. We find LD CIT(A)/NFAC has also held that the issue of stamp duty valuation is debatable one there is a change of opinion hence the action of the AO cannot be upheld therefore the order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act has been quashed. It is the settled proposition of law that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two options cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 4,58,666/-. The case was selected under limited scrutiny for verification of investments in agricultural land i.e. movable property. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 30.12.2016 accepting the returned income. Later on, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant has purchased agricultural lands for a consideration of Rs. 43,33,000/-. However, the stamp duty value for the purpose of registration of the said agricultural lands was Rs. 5,75,15,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 154 on 19.02.2019 invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order u/s 154 wherein he assessed income at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01/2022 which is already on the record will leave no doubt that the adoption of ready reckoner value in place of agreement value is not acceptable to me therefore it was mandatory to refer the matter to valuation officer. With reference to the above preposition of the law there has been failure on the part of assessing officer to refer the matter to the valuation officer before the value of ready reckoner is being replaced to the agreement value. This renders the proceedings initiated u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) renders the proceedings unlawful null void. Moreover whether such reference to the valuation to the officer should have been or must have been done is itself highly debatable issue therefore same cannot be coming within the domain of provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that in case there was some issue regarding the stamp duty valuation, the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO which the AO failed to do as the stamp duty valuation was not acceptable to the appellant. Thus, the appellant has claimed that the issue is debatable and the same cannot be brought within the domain of provisions of Sec. 154 of the Act. It has further stated that invocation of provisions of Sec. 154 does not give jurisdiction to the assessing officer to amend the assessment order merely on the change of opinion. On this ground also order passed u/s 154 is not sustainable in the eyes of law the same be cancelled. 9. I have considered the assessment order, rectification order and the submissions made by the appellant. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the IT Act to the transaction of purchase of rural agricultural land after considering the detailed reply of the assessee, the then AO was satisfied that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) were not applicable to the transaction of rural agricultural land and the said satisfaction was based upon the documentary evidence furnished during the course of the original assessment proceedings therefore there is no mistake of overlooking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. It was further submitted that this tantamount to change of opinion on same set of facts the issue of stamp duty valuation is debatable one. It was also submitted that there cannot be any rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act to the assessment order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the settled proposition of law that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two options cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC, and therefore we confirm the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC. Consequently the grounds raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07th May, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
