9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t value of the property sold by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration. Therefore, when the assessee had raised a specific objection as to the value of the property adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities, on the ground that the title itself to the impugned property under consideration was defective, then, in our considered view, CIT(Appeals) has correctly held that the matter was required to be referred to the file of DVO. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Appeal of the Department is dismissed. - Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Bharat Trivedi, A.R. For the Respondent : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer ascertained from the Stamp Valuation Authorities that as per prevailing jantri/circle rates, the value of the property was Rs. 4,98,83,550/- against declared consideration amount of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- in the conveyance deed. Therefore, provisions of Section 50C of the Act were applicable in the case of the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer, taking into consideration the assessee's contentions held that the said plot of land was defective and the land was also a disputed land, and also agreed with the submission of the assessee to the effect that the valuation done by the Stamp Valuation Authority(SVA) / (Jantri Value)was more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,80,97,550/- (Rs.4,98,83,550/- minus Rs. 3, 17,86,000/-)] has escaped the assessment in the hands of the assessee by adopting the Jantri value of such property. The AO vide assessment order passed under Section. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 19.11.2018 made addition considering the value of property at Rs. 4,98,83,550/- i.e. by taking the jantri value of such property as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority (the assessee's share was Rs. 2,99,30,130/-). This, addition was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: It is understood that the appellant raised objections to the Stamp Duty Valuation and the AO failed to send the matter for valua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpert opinion on the matter, as per the specific provisions of sub Section 2 of Section 50C of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in our view has correctly observed that there have been serious objections by the assessee to the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and the Jantri value as adopted by the assessing officer did not represent the correct sale value of such property, since there were certain inherent infirmities in the title to the property, which effectively reduced the sale value of such property. This was within the knowledge of the assessing officer and therefore on these facts, the assessing officer should have referred the matter to the DVO in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act. Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court held that where assessee objects before Assessing Officer that value adopted by stamp valuation authority under Section 50C(1) exceeds fair market value of property on date of transfer, Assessing Officer may either accept valuation of property on basis of report of approved valuer filed by assessee or he may refer question of valuation of capital asset to DVO in accordance with Section 55A of the Act. In the case of K.K. Nag Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2012) 22 taxmann.com 26 (Pune Tribunal), the assessee sold a property, and the sale consideration was less than the stamp duty value. The assessee requested a referral to the DVO, which was not initially entertained by the AO. The ITAT held that if the assessee makes a request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Stamp Valuation Authorities did not represent the correct value of the property sold by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration. Therefore, when the assessee had raised a specific objection as to the value of the property adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities, on the ground that the title itself to the impugned property under consideration was defective, then, in our considered view, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has correctly held that the matter was required to be referred to the file of DVO. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/08/2024 - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
