Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 1159

essee as sale consideration and the value that was adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The submission of ld.AR that in the case of co-owners, the matter has been restored to AO by the Tribunal has not been controverted by ld.DR. We find that in the case(s) of S/Shri Ajay Hasmukhlal Jariwala and Dhanesh K.Jariwala HUF, the other co-owners, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal [2015 (8) TMI 454 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] had set aside the issue to the file of AO, by holding in view of the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, we are of the considered view that the AO was not justified in adopting the value of the property as adopted by the “stamp valuation authority” without referring to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value of the property. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below on this issue are hereby set aside and the additional ground raised by the assessee is restored back to the file of AO to decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to say that the AO would afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order. Thus, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes - I.T.A. No.178/Ahd/2012 - .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ewith. This ground is to refer the matter to DVO as against the adoption of stamp duty valuation u/s.50C by the appellant before the ld.AO in its letter dated 10/12/2010 (AO page 3 para-6). Thus the facts about such request made to the AO is on record. On identical facts in the case of another joint holder (seller of said property alongwith appellant) namely Shri Nileshkumar H.Jariwala, the valuation is referred to the DVO and the DVO has arrived at fair market value as per copy attached. The ground has remained to be taken in the Memo of appeal inadvertently but is a legally allowable claim and is raised as such being mandatory in law once the objection taken in terms of sec.50C(2) and in the best interest of justice. The Honble ITAT be pleased to admit the same since as per the judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shilpa Associates (263 ITR 317), it can be raised before the Hon ble ITAT. 2.3. Before us, at the outset, the ld.AR submitted that though the assessee has raised various grounds but the only effective issue is with respect to the addition made by following the valuation method u/s.50C of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

is pleaded that the revised return should be accepted as additional evidence vide Rule-46(1)(a) and Rule- 46(1)(c). The provisions for filing of revised return in Section-139(5) stipulate that revised return can be filed within one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or any time before the completion of assessment. Therefore, the revised return cannot be considered as it was filed after the completion of the assessment and hence non-est. Even if it is considered as additional evidence, it would not benefit the appellant in any way because in the revised return the appellant has himself adopted the stamp duty valuation as the full value of consideration, thereby putting to rest any controversy in regard to value to be adopted as consideration in computation of capital gain. In the revised return the appellant claimed that the fair market value of his share of the property as on 01.04.1981 was ₹ 386667/- and not ₹ 270258/- as taken by him in the original return. Though in his support the appellant has filed a valuation report it is in contradiction to his own valuation in the original return and for this reason alone is required to be rejected as an afterth .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

in ITA Nos.179 & 180/Ahd/2010 respectively for AY 2008-09 vide its order dated 14/05/2015 had set aside the issue to the file of AO, by holding as under:- 4. Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee and having considered the same CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. Before us, learned Authorized Representative submitted that Assessing Officer should have refer the matter to District Valuation Officer in view of objection taken by assessee and also fulfilling the condition of Section 50C. Learned Authorized Representative pointed out that ITAT 'C' Bench on identical issue in case of one of the co-owner Shri Nikunjkumar H. Jariwala vs. ITO in ITA No. 2404/And/2011 has considered the facts and set aside the matter to Assessing Officer to make assessment in accordance with valuation as per District Valuation Officer by observing as under: 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that in the instant case, the AO has made addition on the basis of the difference in the value of the property .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

) of section 2 of the Wealthtax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). [Explanation 2 : For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.] 5.1. The ld.counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention towards para-6 of the assessment order in support of the contention that before the AO a request was made to refer the case to DVO for seeking his report on the fair market value of the property. Para-6 of the assessment order is reproduced hereinbelow:- 6. The reply of the assessee dated 10.12.2010 is reproduced as under:- We just come to know that one open land in the same locality was sold at 5,000/- per sq.mt. Before one year ago, we are in the opinion that what we got amount @ 10,000/- per sq.mt. is true & fair market value. Secondly, we are of the opinion to refer the case to the D.V.O., Surat to justify the case. There are cases of judgement of : New Kalindi Kamavati Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State o .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||