TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed fact that the assessee simply challenged the sale consideration on the basis of stamp valuation authority but had not requested to refer this issue to the DVO but the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT, Siliguri [2014 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] as held the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplated u/s 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice - The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty - Even in a case where no such prayer is made by the learned advocate representing the assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the AO, discharging a quasi-judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law – thus, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO as directed to refer the valuation of land to the DVO for the purpose of valuation of the land on the date of sale – Decided in favour of Assessee for statistical purposes only.. - ITA No. 587/JP/2013 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mended on the lines submitted in our grounds of appeal. 6) That the assessee reserves his right to add, alter, amend, delete all or any grounds before or at the time of hearing. 2. The second ground of the appeal is against challenging the validity of notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per AIR information received from CIB, it came to notice that the sale value of ₹ 98,20,156/- of a property at Khasra No. 124, village- Saladvas Thamer, Jaipur sold by the assessee was adopted by the Sub-Registrar. On the other hand, the assessee had declared this property sold at ₹ 27 lacs only and calculated capital gain accordingly. The learned Assessing Officer observed that as per Section 50C, the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar i.e. ₹ 98,20,156/- is to be taken as full value of consideration. There was difference of ₹ 71,20,156/- is liable to be treated as income from capital gain. Therefore, notice U/s 148 of the Act was issued after recording reasons that in this case, the income chargeable to tax has been escaped. The assessee challenged this issue before the learned CIT(A), who has confirmed the issue by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not taken sale consideration of the immoveable property as per Section 50, which is deeming provision on computation of capital gain. Therefore, we confirm the reopening made by the learned Assessing Officer, confirmed by the learned CIT(A). This ground of assessee s appeal is dismissed. 6. The grounds No. 1,3,4 and 5 of the assessee s appeal are against taking sale value consideration on the basis of sale deed for stamp valuation and computing capital gain at ₹ 77,17,029/-. The learned Assessing Officer has calculated the capital gain on the basis of sale value consideration adopted by the Sub-Registrar at ₹ 98,20,156/- in place of 27 lacs declared by the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that sale value adopted by the stamp authority could not be considered sale value of the property U/s 50C of the Act to calculate the capital gain. He further submitted that the assessee entered in an agreement with the buyer of the land on 19/09/2005 to construct commercial complex on this land. As per agreement, some construction work was done but the transaction could not be materialized. Since the assessee was in need of money and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs. It is further argued that as per sub-Section (2) of Section 50C of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer was incumbent upon to refer the matter to the valuation officer. He further argued that if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the sale consideration offered by the assessee then he must refer the valuation matter to the valuation officer, for which he relied upon the following case laws:- (i) Meghraj Baid Vs. ITO (2008) 23 SOT 25 (Jodh). (ii) ITO Vs. Smt. Manju Rani Jain (2008) 24 SOT 24 (Delhi). (iii) Ajmal Fragrances Fashions (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 13(1) (2009) 34 SOT 57 (Mum). Therefore, he prayed to delete the addition made under the head capital gain. 8.1 Learned A.R. further relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandni Bhuchar (2010) 323 ITR 510 and the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT, Siliguri GA No. 3686 of 2013 ITAT No. 221 of 2013 order dated 13th March, 2014 and prayed to set aside the order to the Assessing Officer and directed to refer this case to the DVO for valuation of land on date of sale. 9. At the outset, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
