9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statistical purposes and the matter is restored to the jurisdictional AO for carrying out necessary exercise of referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer and decide the issue in accordance with law as discussed herein above. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member And Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Pravash Roy, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma , JM : This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 is directed against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ld. CIT(A) ]. The assessee has raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- made by the ld. AO, CPC vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by making and addition ignoring the fact that market value of the property which has shown by the assessee in his return of income. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before the bench that case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT reported in (2014) 47 taxmann.com 158 (Calcutta). 3. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities but failed to controvert the submissions made by ld. counsel for the assessee. 4. We have rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The issue for our consideration is whether ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the assessee is that the fair market value of the property was Rs. 35 lakh only for determination of the long term capital gain and alleged that the addition made by the authority below is not correct. 5. Under these given facts and circumstances, we would like to go through the finding of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal (supra) and the same reads as follows: 6. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The submission of Ms. Ghutghutia that the requirement of clauses a) and (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 50C has not been met by the assessee, can hardly be accepted. The requirement of clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 50C was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e departmental valuation officer. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. The legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a fair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof should be refused. Even in a case where no such prayer is made by the learned advocate representing the assessee, who may not have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
