Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ken the following grounds of appeal: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts and in circumstances of the case by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,82,33,314/- being LTCG which was also confirmed by the CIT(A)-10, Ahmedabad. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts and in circumstances of the appellant's plea for accepting the taxing of Long Term Capital Gain in A.Y. 2011-12 instead of A.Y. 2012-13. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The brief facts of the case are that a plot of land was purchased jointly by the assessee at a purchase price of Rs. 8,15,000/-. The purchase deed was registered on 19.12.2006. The said plot was sold by the asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 10.08.2016 upheld the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT, Ahmedabad also dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide Order dated 18.11.2019 in ITA No: 2634/AHD/2016 as assessee did not pursue the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. 4. Later, the Ld. Assessing Officer observed that in the case of one of the co-owners, i.e. Girishbhai Prahladbhai Patel (whose share in the property was 20%), he did not seek valuation from DVO during his assessment proceedings. The A.O. of the co-owner of the property, in assessment proceedings of the company-owne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rity. There were inherent infirmities in the title etc. This knowledge of AO, therefore, the provisions u/s. 50C(2) were required to be invoked. The AO has adopted path of least resistance and got over-swayed by the assessment order issued in the case of co-owner Shri Girishbhai P. Patel. The minimum additional effort required was to send the matter for valuation to the DVO u/s. 5 5A. It is well settled law either for A. Y. 2011-12 or A. Y. 2012-13 that the reference to DVO u/s. 55A has to be made in case the appellant disputes the rate prescribed in the Jantri value. In view of above facts and the ratio laid down by various High Courts and ITATs the contention raised by the appellant is found to be correct." 6. The Department is in appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessable will be considered the full value of consideration for computing capital gains. Section 50C(2) gives an option to the taxpayer to dispute the stamp duty value assessed by the State Authority. The taxpayer can request the Assessing Officer (AO) to refer the valuation to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) if the taxpayer claims that the value assessed by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. In the case of PCIT v. Ravjibhai Nagjibhai Thesia76 taxmann.com 76 (Gujarat), the High Court held that Assessing Officer is required to compute capital gain taking value given by Valuation Officer under Section 50C, even though it is lesser than value adopted by stamp valuatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the AO should refer the valuation of the property to the DVO when the assessee objects to the stamp duty value. The valuation by the DVO should be considered for computing capital gains. In the case of Madhukumar N. (HUF) v. DCIT (2012) 50 SOT 393 (Bang) the assessee sold a property, and the sale consideration was less than the stamp duty value. The assessee claimed that the stamp duty value exceeded the fair market value and requested a referral to the DVO. The ITAT held that it is mandatory for the AO to refer the valuation to the DVO if the assessee objects to the adoption of the stamp duty value and claims that the value adopted exceeds the fair market value. 7. Accordingly, in view of the facts of the present case and the judicial .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates