9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We come to the relevant facts now. The assessee company had sold its capital assets in question i.e. a plot measuring 37838 sq.ft. comprised in land survey No. 974/27 for consideration of Rs. 75,67,600/- at Timba, R.S. No. 974/14 admeasuring 40,772 sq.ft. for Rs. 81,54,400/- and R.S. No. 974/26 admeasuring 39625 sq.ft. for Rs. 79,25,000/-; respectively. The said transactions also attracted additional stamp duties. Net effect thereof was that the total consideration amount stood notionally increased to Rs. 95,69,273/-, Rs. 1,03,08,584/- and Rs. 99,91,020/-; respectively. The Assessing Officer adopted the above enhanced consideration(s) to invoke Section 50C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within a period of 30 days the said document would be referred to the Collector Stamp Duty Valuation Division - 1/2, Panchmahals for correct valuation of market price as per the provisions of Section 32(ka)(1)." 5.2.4. Thus, the Stamp Duty as per the jantri rate has not been accepted in this case and the same had been appealed against and, accordingly, a fresh market value was determined by the Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation which was substantially lower than the valuation of the land as per the jantri rate. For e.g. in case of R.S. No. 974/27, the sale consideration Vhown by the appellant is Rs. 75,67,600/- as against which the jantri rate was Rs. 1,87,29,900/-. After filing appeal against this jantri rate, the market value was determ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital gains addition. The CIT(A) particularly is of the opinion that the above reduced jantri price in Stamp Act Appellate proceedings coming to Rs. 95,73,102/- is just and proper. We however see no reason to concur with the above extracted findings as the impugned addition u/s. 50C(2) of the Act mandates reference to the DVO in case an assessee contests the jantri price in question to be higher than fair market value of the relevant capital asset. Hon'ble Calcutta high court's judgment in (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT holds that such a reference is mandatory even if an assessee does not make any such prayer. We therefore accept assessee's sole substantive grievance for statistical purposes and remit the issue back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
