PREET NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -19, DELHI

The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in not allowing 10% Safe Harbor Limit. 4. The brief facts are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property, being industrial plot bearing no. J-25A, Sector 63, Noida to M/s Savita Polymers for a total sale consideration recorded in the sale deed at Rs. 5 crore. As per circle rate the Sub-Registrar registered the sale deed by valuing the property for the purpose of computing stamp duty of Rs. 5,65,35,000/-. The assessee before the AO submitted a Valuation Report valuing the property at Rs. 5,49,58,488/-. The assessee before the AO claimed in view of 3rd proviso to section 50(1) by Safe Harbor Rule of 10% that there is no addition can be made by invoking the provision of section 50C of the Act. The approved valuer of the assessee valued the property i.e. at Rs. 5,49,58,488/- comprising land value at circle rate of Rs. 5,41,20,000/- and value of old construction of Rs. 8,38,488/-. Whereas stamp duty valuation of Rs. 5,65,35,000/- comprising of land value at circle rate of Rs. 5,41,20,000/- and value of construction at Rs. 24,15,000/-. The AO was of the view that stamp duty valuation in terms of section 50C will prevail and he accordingly treated the differential amount of Rs. 65,35,000/- as income of the assessee and added to the returned income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, asseesee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has submitted valuation report prepared by the Registered Valuer valuing the property at Rs. 5,49,58,488/- comprising of land value at circle rate of Rs. 5,41,20,000/- and value of old construction of Rs. 8,38,488/- whereas the stamp duty value is Rs. 5,65,35,000/- comprising the land value of Rs. 5,41,20,000/- and value of construction of Rs. 24,15,000/-. The admitted facts are that the AO has never referred the matter to the DVO despite the objections of the assssee as against the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. AO did not rely on valuation report submitted by the assessee to support the amount of sale consideration without pointing any defect in the stamp duty without pointing any defect in the same or without rejecting the same. Once this is the case, the AO has to accept the valuation report submitted by the