TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of section 50C – thus, the AO is directed not to consider the FMV of the property as on 1.4.1981 as given by the valuation officer in his valuation report dated 22.12.2009 for the purpose of computing capital gains from the impugned transaction – the order of the CIT(A) upheld – decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 4865/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2013 - Shri R. S. Syal And Shri Vivek Varma,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Kishan Vyas For the Respondent : Shri Nitesh Joshi ORDER Per Vivek Varma, JM:- The appeal is filed by the department against the order of CIT(A) 27, Mumbai, dated 21.02.2011, wherein, the following grounds have been taken: "1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the reference made by the A.O. to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Fort Chambers, Fort for a consideration received by him, which comprised of Rs. 65 lacs and Rs. 35 lacs to be put on escrow account in view of BMC liabilities, on 25.05.2006. The assessee acquired the tenancy rights from Bombay Santosh Bhuwan on 08.12.1977 for a consideration of Rs. 5,28,520/-. 4. The AO to rework out the surrender value of tenancy rights, invoked rectification proceedings u/s 154 and reworked out the surrender value at Rs. 1,19,43,000/-, in place of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, as shown by the assessee. In the appeal before the CIT(A), the AO was directed to not to apply the value taken by the Valuation Officer. The DR challenged the order of the CIT(A), wherein, the CIT(A) had accepted the contentions of the assessee with rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adopted by the stamp valuation authorities is objected to by the assessee, and not otherwise. In the above back ground, the value of the property as on 1.4.81 furnished by the valuation officer by way of his order dated 22.12.2009, u/s 50C of the Act received by the AO on 5.1.2010 is illegal. Accordingly, AO's action in relying the assessment u/s 154 of the Act having regard to the said valuation report is also vitiated. Therefore, without going into the issue that provisions of section 50C do not mandate the AO to refer the matter to valuation officer in respect of value of tenancy rights per se, I hold that the impugned transaction itself is not covered by the provisions of section 50C and further having regard to the above discussion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
