MR. PRALHAD L ARONDEKAR,CALANGUTE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PANAJI

Facts

The assessee, engaged in real estate, sold a building and purchased two plots in A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions by adopting stamp duty valuation as sale/purchase consideration, which was significantly higher than the reported values, and passed an order under Section 143(3). The assessee had requested a DVO reference, but the report was not received by the AO before the assessment was finalized, leading to the CIT(A) confirming the AO's action.

Held

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by overlooking the DVO report, which was submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings and showed a lower valuation than the stamp duty authority. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to consider the DVO report and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions based on stamp duty valuation without considering a DVO report, available during appellate proceedings, that showed a lower valuation, and the applicability of Sections 43CA and 50C.