TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have referred the matter to D.V.O., therefore, the direction for adopting the value determined by the D.V.O. was not justified because the facts are altogether different as the reference was made by the Assessing Officer and not by the learned CIT (A) - Therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) particularly in view of the provisions contained in section 250(4)of the Act - Hence, the appeal is dismissed. - ITA. No. 477/Luc/10 - - - Dated:- 29-12-2010 - H.L. Karwa, N.K. Saini, JJ. Anadi Verma, DR, for the Appellant Pradeep Mehrotra, Adv., for the Respondent ORDER N.K. Saini: This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order dated 27/04/2010 of CIT(A)-II, Kanpur rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Ld. CIT (A)-II. Kanpur dated 27.04.2010 needs to be quashed and the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 26.08.2007 be restored. 5. That the appellant craves leave to modify any of the grounds of appeal mentioned above and/or to add any fresh grounds as and when required to do so." 2. From the above grounds it would be clear that the only grievance of the department relates to the direction given to the Assessing Officer by the learned CIT (A) to refer the case to the D.V.O. for valuation of the property. The facts related to this case, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 28/03/2007 declaring an income of Rs.1,79,160/. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.35,99,999/- as chargeable to tax. Since the assessee had already shown long term capital gain of Rs.20,36,999/-,therefore, difference of Rs.15,63,000/- (Rs.35,99,999 - Rs.20,36,999) was added to the income of the assessee. 3. The assessee carried the matter to learned CIT(A) who noticed that the assessee had submitted before the Assessing Officer that there was encroachment on the plots and a temple had been constructed inside the plot which resulted into lowering of the market value of the plots. The assessee also submitted to the learned CIT (A) that with great difficulty the plots could be sold at Rs.23,40,000/- and hence the circle rate should not be applied. The learned CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to refer the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the instant case, the whole issue revolves around the provisions contained in section 50C of the Act which read as under: 50C"50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed [or assessable] shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property in question was disputed and one temple was constructed in the said property, so there was no buyer. In such circumstances the provisions contained in sub section (2) of section 50C of the Act are applicable, therefore, the right course for the Assessing Officer was to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and since no such reference was made by the Assessing Officer even after request of the assessee the learned CIT (A) was fully justified in directing the Assessing Officer to refer the matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer and to adopt the value as determined by the Valuation Officer for the purpose of computing long term capital gain. In the present case, the matter was referred by the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
