9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Assessing Officer of completing the assessment u/s 143(3) and making addition of Rs. 518,500/- by invoking provisions of Sec 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by rejecting contention of the appellant. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has added the difference without referring the said case to the Departmental Valuation Officer whereas assessee has even produced his own valuation officer at CIT(A) level. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of charging interest upon the said amount as per the provisions of Sec 234B and 234C which is further not justified. 3. The only issue raised in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than 150 sq.mtrs., the assessee was liable to pay extra 25% and hence, difference in the stamp duty value. The assessee stressed that the point which needs to be appreciated is the price agreed to, as per ready reckoner only. However, there was only artificial increase due to peculiar rule of the respective authorities, for which additional stamp duty had to be paid. The Assessing Officer did not accept explanation of assessee being liable to pay 25% additional stamp duty, as directed by the authorities. Further, the Assessing Officer also pointed out that there was no merit in the plea of assessee that price paid by her was in line with the transaction that happened in that year. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 5,18,000/- was made in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in line with them. The CIT(A) thus, upheld the order of Assessing Officer. 6. The assessee is in appeal against order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was disputing valuation determined by stamp valuation authority both before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), even the valuation report was filed. Then, as per proviso under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation to the DVO. In this regard, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in K.K. Nag Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 22 taxmann.com 37 (Pune). 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer of capital asset being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by stamp duty authority, then for the purpose of adopting or assessing the consideration, then such stamp duty valuation would be taken. Sub-section (2) to section 50C of the Act provides that without prejudice to provisions of sub-section (1), where (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer and (b) such value has not been disputed in appeal or revision before any authority, court, then the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of capital asset to the Valuation Officer and the other provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
