TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above the AO made reference to the DVO before conclusion of the Assessment proceedings i.e., before 28.12.2018 on which date he passed the order of assessment. The letter of the purchaser of the property to the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps is dated 26.2.2019 which is after the date of reference to DVO by the AO. Thus as on the date on which the AO referred the question of valuation of the property to the DVO, there was no bar in terms of Sec.50C(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the valuation report given by the DVO cannot be ignored. Since the DVO himself valued the property which is less than the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty and registration, the same should be adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of the property. The AO accordingly, brought a sum of ₹ 79,10,000/- (₹ 2,09,10,000 = 1,30,000.00/-) as long term capital gains (LTCG). 3. The action of the AO was based on the provisions of sec.50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act). The provisions of sec.50C of the Act, reads as under; Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. 50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the stamp valuation authority ) for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the Appeal, the DVO to whom the AO had made a reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act for valuation of the property gave a report dated 09-05-2019 in which the property was valued at a sum of ₹ 1,59,31,000/-. Based on the aforesaid report of the DVO, the Assessee contended before the CIT(A), that the valuation done by the DVO was excessive as he has not taken note of the exact location of the property and other factors that would affect the valuation of the property. The Assessee also filed a registered valuer s report dated 09-04-2019 mentioning the value of property at ₹ 1,33,95,800/- and submitted that the registered valuer s report should be accepted. Without prejudice to the above submission Assessee submitted the value adopte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Tribunal. The only ground that was pressed for adjudication before us was with regard to the action of the AO in not adopting the value as determined by the DVO namely, a sum of ₹ 1,59,31,000/- as a full value of consideration received on transfer of property for the purpose of computing the long term capital gains. 8. We have heard the rival submissions. We notice that the only reason assigned by the ld.CIT(A) in para-4.10 of his order is that the purchaser of the property had disputed the valuation of the property by the state government authorities for the purpose of levy of stamp duty by submitting a letter dated 26-02-2019 to the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps. Section 50C(2) of the IT Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
