BABAN CHINDHU HARANE,TAL - SAHAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KALYAN, KALYAN
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2018-19
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In the instant case, as per the information available with the department in insight portal the Assessee had purchased a property on a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- as against the stamp duty valuation at Rs.10,64,000/- and therefore the case of the Assessee was reopened by recording reasons for reopening and issuing notice dated 11.02.2023 u/s 148 of the Act, which resulted into making the addition of Rs.6,64,000/- being difference between the stamp
Mr. Baban Chindhu Harane
2
duty valuation and the consideration shown by the Assessee u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, could not get any relief and therefore the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee has submitted that the Assessee had challenged the stamp duty valuation, however, the authorities below without referring the valuation of the property to the District Valuation Officer as per norms of the Act, decided the issue and therefore the orders passed by the authorities below are liable to be set aside as it was bounden duty of the authorities below to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer, as the Assessee has raised the issue qua valuation.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.
This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the decision of the Hon’ble (Kolkata – HC) which has also dealt with the identical issue, wherein the Assessee has not opted for valuation of the property for reference of valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer specifically, however, still the Hon’ble High Court has held that the AO in a case of this nature, in fairness should have given an option to the Assessee to have the valuation made by the Departmental Valuation Officer contemplated u/s 50C. As a matter of course, in all such cases the AO should give an option to the Mr. Baban Chindhu Harane
3
Assessee to have the valuation made by the Departmental Valuation
Officer. The valuation by the Departmental Officer contemplated u/s 50C is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. Even in case where no such prayer is made by the Ld. Advocate representing the Assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the AO, discharging a quasi-judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law.
The Hon’ble High Court ultimately remanded the matter back to the AO with a direction to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer in accordance with law and after such valuation the assessment shall be made denovo in accordance with law. For brevity, the observation made and conclusion drawn by the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced herein below: “We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The submission of Ms. Ghutghutia that the requirement of clauses a) and (b) of sub- Section 2 of Section 50C has not been met by the assessee, can hardly be accepted. The requirement of clause (b) of sub-Section 2 of Section 50C was evidently met. The only question is whether the requirement of clause (a) of sub-Section 2 of Section 50C was met by the assessee.
We have already set out hereinabove the recital appearing in the Deeds of Conveyance upon which the assessee was relying.
Presumably, the case of the assessee was that price offered by the buyer was the highest prevailing price in the market. If this is his case then it is difficult to accept the proposition that the assessee had accepted that the price fixed by the District Sub