9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the provisions of section 50C on the sales of property. 3. Brief background of the case is that original assessment was made u/s 143(3) on 22.11.2006, wherein the long-term-capitalgains on sale of property was determined at Rs. 5,99,000/- by adopting fair market value as per stamp valuation u/s 50C at Rs. 20,06,500/- as against the sale amount mentioned in the sale deed at Rs. 13 lakhs. In the first appeal, the Ld CIT(A) has upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) in terms of section 50C(2)(a) and compute the capital gains in accordance with the law. The relevant observation and the directio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to uphold the stand taken by the Assessing Officer. The assessment order itself was passed on 22.11.2006 and five weeks time was available to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment which was getting barred by time only on 31.12.2006. The assessee had made the claim by letter dated 6.11.2006 which was in response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer on 26.10.2006. It cannot therefore be stated that the delay was entirely on the part of the assessee. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders of the departmental authorities on this point have to be set aside. We do so and direct the Assessing Officer to process the assessee's claim made under section 50C(2)(a) and refer the matter to the departmental val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was made at the request of the assessee only and therefore, the value of Valuation Officer or as per the stamp duty valuation has to be adopted as the Assessing Officer is bound by the decision of the Tribunal. Now that the valuation by the DVO is more than valuation of the property by stamp valuation authority, therefore, the market value as per the stamp duty would be adopted. Thus he took FMV at Rs. 20,06,500/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), too confirmed the said addition on the ground that Assessing Officer has bound to follow the direction of the Tribunal. 6. Before us the Ld. Counsel, strongly relying upon the decision of P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs Chandni Bhuchar (supra), submitted that in absence of any positive evidence, st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
