Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1065 - ITAT CHENNAIAddition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - difference in the consideration paid for purchase of a property and the guideline value fixed by the SRO - contention of the Assessee was that the guideline value fixed by the SRO is not the fair market value of the property and thus, had requested the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO - DVO had not submitted the report when the assessment was getting time barred and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment without waiting for the DVO’s report and had made the additions towards the differential amount as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) - HELD THAT:- We find that once the Assessing Officer has referred the valuation of the property to the DVO, then he ought to have waited for the DVO’s report to ascertain the fair market value of the property for the purchase as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the Assessing Officer has made the additions without waiting for the DVO’s report, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue afresh after taking into account the report submitted by the DVO. Hence, we set aside the issue and remit back the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment and consider the issue in accordance with law after taking into account the valuation report submitted by the DVO. Appeal of the Assessee treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
|