9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of sec-50C of the Act. AO ought to have appreciated when the assessee objects to said valuation, then the AO is bound to refer the valuation to DVO in accordance with provisions of Sec 55A of the Income-tax Act. No evasive approach can be adopted for applying deeming provisions without considering the objections of referring the matter to DVO. The Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Amar Shiv Construction Pvt Ltd. [ 2017 (12) TMI 1889 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and Jayshree Kothari [ 2018 (10) TMI 1593 - ITAT HYDERABAD] held that such action on the part of the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made and the addition being erroneous ought not to have been upheld by the CIT(A) and return income of Rs. 14,08,850/- ought to have been accepted. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 139 days. The Assessee has filed Condonation Application, along with affidavit, explaining the reasons for delay. The Bench was satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-filing of the appeal within the stipulated time; therefore, the delay was condoned and the Appeal was admitted for hearing. 4. In this case, the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 20.10.2024 declaring income of Rs. 14,08,850/- which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rstanding on the part of advocate has not been received so far. The Assessing Officer failed to consider following aspects of the issue before finalising the assessment raised by the assessee during the course of assessment vide letter dated 27.11.2019. The provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are applicable only if the consideration towards immovable property is less than the stamp duty value. In the assessee s case, the consideration value is not less than the Jantri value rate certified by the Sub-Registrar, Bopal on 04.04.2019. The additional Stamp Duty of Rs. 3,15,000/- was paid on 12.04.2013 and the assessee has claimed refund of said excess stamp duty payment from the government. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
