TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide its letter admitted that preliminary report was not given to the assessee calling upon its objection during the original valuation proceedings. Therefore taking into account, the assessee s objection second valuation report dated 28.02.2018 was submitted determining the value of the property - CIT(A) erred in holding that the DVO cannot revisit his order and the second report is not binding either of the AO or the Appellate Authority, since assessment has already been done in that case. This is against the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. It is clear find from the facts that the DVO in its first valuation report determined the value of Rs. 1,35,88,000/- without providing preliminary report to the assessee calling for his objection. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Department got information that the assessee has sold a property situated at Jamnagar on 18.11.2010 for a consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/-. However, the value of the property as per the Jantri Value u/s. 50C of the Act was of Rs. 1,39,55,490/-. As the assessee has not filed any Return of Income, therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a Return of Income on 27.11.2015 declaring Nil income. The assessee objected to the Jantry Value as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and ready to get the property valued by the Approved Valuer. Therefore the A.O. referred the matter u/s. 50C(2) of the Act, the Valuation Officer who determined the valued at Rs. 1,35,88,000/-. Assessee bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in law as well as on facts in making addition u/s. 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not considering Revised Valuation Report submitted by Departmental Valuation Officer which was revised at the instruction of Assessing Officer during the course of Remand Proceedings. 4.1. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record, it is a clear that, based on the direction of the Assessing Officer, the DVO was entrusted to consider assessee s objection on the valuation of the property. Further the DVO vide its letter dated 12.10.2017 admitted that preliminary report was not given to the assessee calling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
