9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by assessing officer U/S 143(3) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 14,34,500. ii. The learned CIT (A) has erred in not considering the detailed submission of the assessee made during the appellate proceedings. iii. The learned CIT (A) has erred in not considering the submission made by the assessee during appellate proceedings as will be clearly evident from the order of CIT (A) where in no rebuttal /discussion whatsoever of the submission made by the assessee during appellant proceeding as such the order of the CIT (A) is bad-in-law and the same is against natural justice to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1,17,00,000/- for Flat No.702. The assessee submitted that he paid Rs. 50,000/- in cash as a booking amount. Accordingly, the assessee claimed that as the booking and allotment were done in the Financial Year 2011-12, the market value of the property should be considered as per the Ready Reckoner of the year 2012. 4. The Assessing Officer ("AO"), vide order dated 26.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that there is no evidence on record to prove that the agreed consideration or part thereof was paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement for the transfer of immovable property. Therefore, the AO held that the Ready Reckoner rates of the year 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansfer of the immovable properties. 8. We have considered the submission of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the assessee purchased two residential flats in Olive Apartment, Santacruz, Mumbai. During the year under consideration, the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement was more than the value as per the agreement. The details of the properties purchased by the assessee are as follows: - Properties Agreement Value Stamp duty value as on dated agreement Difference Flat No.701 98,00,000/- 1,01,29,500/- 3,29,500/- Flat No.702 1,17,00,000/- 1,28,05,000/- 11,05,000/- Total 2,15,00,000/- 2,29,34,500/- 14,34,500/- 9. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to appoint and hereby refer the matter to Department Valuation Officer (DVO). I am making this affidavit to be produced before the concerned authorities regarding the above said facts." 10. We find that similar submissions were made before the learned CIT(A), as noted at page 4 of the impugned order, wherein the assessee submitted the deficiencies in the purchased flats like it is a tenant rehabilitation project, surrounded by the slum, not having proper approach road, incomplete and unfurnished work, occupation certificate not received and because of which no water connection, higher property tax etc. From the said submissions, as noted on page 4 of the impugned order, we further find that the assessee specifically requested that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e head "income from other sources". The first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that where the stamp duty of the immovable property as referred to in sub-clause (b) is disputed by the assessee on the grounds as mentioned in section 50C(2) of the Act, the AO may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer. In this regard, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, which reads as follows: - "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where- (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed 16[or assessable] by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on the date of transfer and the value so adopted is also not in dispute in any appeal, revision or reference before any Authority, Court or High Court. Thus, both the conditions of section 50C(2) of the Act are fulfilled in the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the AO erred in not referring the valuation of the residential flats to the DVO. Further, the impugned order also suffers from the same vice as despite recording submission of the assessee in this regard, no reference was made to the DVO for the valuation as per the provision of the Act. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances as noted above, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for de novo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
