MEENA VERMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-32(2), NEW DELHI

As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has agitated the additions of Rs.69,70,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act.

We have heard the rival submissions on the above disputes. It is the case of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has made additions merely on the basis of the valuation of the properties for stamp duty purposes without making any reference to the valuation cell for determination of intrinsic value of the property in question for which sale consideration is alleged to be undervalued. Section 50C(2) provides that the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to the Valuation Officer in the circumstances where the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. Having regard to the statutory stipulation made in the deeming provision of Section 50C, we consider it expedient to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to obtain the valuation report from the Valuation Officer as contemplated in Section 50C of the Act and give a suitable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its stand and furnish rebuttal to the opinion of the Valuation Officer, if so considered fit and proper by the assessee. After giving proper opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass the assessment order denovo in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.