SHIVANI KHANDELWL,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER

PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.07.2017 of CIT(A), Ajmer for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “ That under the facts of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- (1) Applying the provision of section 50C and considering 50C value at Rs. 11491732.00 instead of Rs. 51,11,000.00 whereas the matter is subjudicious in court of law. (2) Restricting deduction u/sec 80 to Rs. 79615. 00. Shivani Khandelwal vs. ITO

(3) Any other matter with prior approval of the Hon’ble Bench.”

thereafter filed a revised e-return on 04.07.2016 declaring total income

of Rs. 4,30,160/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted

that as per ITS, the assessee has purchased a Flat No. 321, situated at Plot/ Block No. A/6 Paiki Southern side ‘Chetan Cooperative Housing

society Ltd, Scheme-1, Vadodara for Rs. 51,11,000/- on 31.10.2013

whereas the stamp authority has valued the said property at Rs.

1,14,91,732/-. The AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee as to why the market value assessed by stamp duty authority should not be taken as the purchase consideration as per provisions of Section 56(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and assess as the same income from other sources. The AO noted that nobody has attended the proceedings

though the assessee filed a letter address to the Dy. Collector (Stamp),

Badodra for appeal against the valuation for the purpose of stamp duty.

The AO after considering the written submissions of the assessee made

the addition of Rs. 63,80,732 u/s 56(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee passed ex-parte whereby the addition made by the AO were confirmed.

was no appearance as before the ld. CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee.

He has further contended that the non appearance before the ld.

CIT(A) was neither intentional nor willful but due to the circumstances

as the assessee has shifted from Ajmer to Badodra. He has further

contended that when the assessee has disputed the stamp valuation

adopted by the AO then, the AO was required to refer the valuation to the DVO. He has further contended that the only grievance in this appeal of the assessee is the addition made by the AO u/s 56(2)(b) of the Act due to the adaptation of the consideration u/s 50C of the Act. hearing as recorded in para 3 of the impugned order as under:-

“3.0 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 27.04.2017,17.05.2017,05.06.2017, 19.06.2017, 04.07.2017 and 18.07.2017. No one has attended on any of the date of hearing and no written submission has been filed. Therefore, the appeal is decided after going through the assessment order and grounds of appeal as under.”

The main grievance of the assessee in this matter is the adoption of the value of the flat u/s 50C of the Act and consequential addition u/s 56(2)(b) of the Act. However, we note that once the assessee has filed and consequential addition u/s 56(2)(b) of the Act though no specific

request was made by the assessee for reference of the matter to the DVO. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the issue in ground no. 1 to the record

of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving one more

opportunities to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/-. We make

it clear that the opportunity granted by us shall stand vacated in case

the assessee fails to appear before the ld. CIT(A) in the remand

proceeding.

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

6