Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, G.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI & AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH SHRI KULDIP SINGHSHRI KULDIP SINGH SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT PRESIDENT :- PRESIDENT
This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Noida dated 28th March, 2017.
The assessee has raised the following grounds :-
“1. That on facts, circumstances of the case, the order u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law as the matter referred in the reason recorded has not been subject matter of addition in the assessment order.
2. That ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee admitted that the value of plot is Rs.1,30,50,000/- ignoring the submission of the assessee that the market value is lower than the circle rate.
2 ITA-2721/Del/2017
3. That the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that several properties in the vicinity sold below the circle rate.
4. That the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer applied the value as per the sale deed without referring the matter to the valuation officer as mandated u/s 50C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961.”
However, at the time of hearing before us, no argument was raised by the assessee with regard to ground No.1. Accordingly, the same is treated as not pressed and rejected as such.
Ground Nos.2, 3 & 4 are interconnected and they are all with regard to computation of capital gains by taking the presumptive sale price as per deeming provision of Section 50C. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee filed the return declaring capital gain as per actual sale consideration received. However, the Assessing Officer worked out the capital gain by taking the deemed sale consideration as provided u/s 50C. That the Assessing Officer did not allow any specific opportunity to the assessee before taking the deemed sale consideration u/s 50C as against the actual sale consideration. He also stated that the assessee filed the return declaring actual sale consideration which itself proves that the assessee has objected to the deemed sale consideration u/s 50C and, therefore, the Assessing Officer ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer as provided in Section 50C(2).
Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below.
We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. From a perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that the Assessing Officer did not allow any specific opportunity to the assessee before adopting the stamp
3 ITA-2721/Del/2017 duty valuation as provided u/s 50C for computing the capital gains as against the actual sale price shown by the assessee. In our opinion, before adopting the stamp duty valuation for the purpose of computing the capital gains as per Section 50C, an opportunity of being heard to the assessee should be allowed. We, therefore, deem it proper to set aside the orders of authorities below on this point and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. We direct him to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and if the assessee claims before him that the value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, then, he will refer the matter to the Valuation Officer as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 50C of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be partly allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 02.11.2017.