TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the Ld. CIT(A) has coterminous powers with the assessee officer, ought to have referred the matter for valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer( in short DVO). Therefore, set aside this issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after referring the matter to the DVO. The assessee would also be at liberty to file a valuation report if so advised. Assessee's Grounds allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.673/Ind/2019 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2020 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Mehta, CA For the Respondent : Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-I, Indore dated 06.03.2019 pertaining to the assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s situated at 58, Shanti Niketan Colony, Gram Niranjanpur Jila, Indore, the property was purchased at ₹ 1,60,10,100/- but the stamp valuation authority have adopted the value at ₹ 1,61,30,000/-. Therefore, the assessing officer called upon the assessee as why the difference of ₹ 1,19,900/- should not be treated as deemed income u/s 56(2)(ii)(b) of the Act and same may not be added. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and treated the difference as deemed income and added in the income of the assessee. Thus, assessed income at ₹ 10,33,270/- as against returned income at ₹ 9,13,370/-. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty situated at 58, Shanti Niketan Colony, Gram Niranjanpur Jila, Indore on 28/11/2014 from Smt. Sushma Gandhe w/o Anil Gandhe for a purchase consideration of ₹ 1,60,10,100/- whereas stamp duty value mentioned on purchase deed was ₹ 1,61,30,000/-.(Copy of Purchase deed is enclosed herewith as Annexure-B ) That the Ld. AO during assessment proceeding treated the difference of stamp value of property and purchase value of property amounting to ₹ 1,19,000/- as deemed income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for AY 2015-16. The said section states as under :- any immovable property,- (i) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng addition made by Ld. AO needs to be deleted. That the amendment made under the said section 56(2)(x)(b) is beneficial to the assessee hence the said amendment is curative in nature and there are various judgement in favour of assessee in which it is held that if any amendment is curative in nature then the said amendment has retrospective effect. The reliance can be placed on the case laws as cited below: i. Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata v. Calcutta Export Company [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51 (SC) held that , we are of the view that the amended provision of Sec 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from the date when Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xmann.com 47 held that: We are in the respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in giving retrospective operation to the said amendment notwithstanding that the parliament has expressly stated that it comes into effect from 01.04.2010. The said amendment is curative in nature. The tribunal committed an error in holding it as prospective. The substantial questions of law is answered in favour of the assesse and against the revenue. The Ld. AO also passed assessment order without obtaining valuation report from any authority for valuation of such property, which is against the law. The Ld. AO should have referred Valuation to Valuation officer (DVO) for valuation of property but Ld. AO did not do so, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleted. 6. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. He submitted that the law is clear, there is no ambiguity under the law and the assessee is required to raise objections applying the guideline rates by the Stamp Valuation Authority. He should have raised such objection before assessing officer but no such objection was raised before the assessing officer, therefore, the authorities below were justified in making the addition. 8. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that assessee had purchased immovable property and there was a difference of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
