TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty shown by the assessee and the FMV determined by the DVO under Section 50C(2) being less than 10 per cent, AO was not justified in substituting the value determined by the DVO for the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. We are also in agreement with AR that decision of Madras High Court in case of Sugantha Ravindran [2013 (3) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case where it has been held that since transfer was made prior to the amendment of Section 50C w.e.f. 1/10/2009, the provisions of section 50C would not be applicable. Unregistered property was sold on 07/08/2006 which means, since the unregistered property was sold before the clarification was issued under Circular N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Not convinced with assessee s reply, the AO referred the valuation of these flats to the District Valuation Officer (DVO), for the determination of the Fair Value of the property sold, who had declared the value to be ₹ 2,07,51,130/-. Difference in the valuation was added by the AO in assessee s income u/s.50C. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Mr. Shashank Dandu, learned AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the total addition is only a small percentage of 5.5%(Approx) on the total amount of sale consideration declared by the Assessee being less than 10%, which may be ignored for the purposes of computing Long Term Capital Gains. In supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Officer. Thus, it is established that the market value determined of the said property is determined by an expert person i.e., DVO who is authorised to do the same as per his qualification. Accordingly it was argued that the addition so made by AO to Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 10,91,130/- is justified and correct. Accordingly, the addition so made by AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be upheld. 10. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also carefully gone through the Circular No.5/10 dated 03/06/2010 as cited by learned AR. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements cited by learned AR during the course of hearing before us in the context of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October, 2009 and will accordingly apply in relation to transactions undertaken on or after such date. In the instant case, the transactions were entered during the financial year 2006-2007 i.e., 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007 which is prior to 01/10/2009. Therefore, as per CBDT, circular provisions of Section 50C are not applicable in so far as sales deed so executed were not registered with the Stamp Duty Violation Authority. We are also inclined to agree with learned AR Mr. Shashank Dandu that in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Rahul Construction (supra) since the difference between the sale consideration of the property shown by the assessee and the FMV determined by the DVO under Section 50C(2) being less than 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
