SHIV SINGH,AGRA vs. ITO WARD-6(2), JHANSI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment years 2007-08, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I [in short the “CIT(A)], Agra’s order in Appeal No.40.CIT(A)-2/Agra/2015-16(OLD) dated 30.11.2017, involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee has raised additional legal ground in the instant appeal challenging validity of reopening without providing him section 151 approval. We note that said approval is nowhere found in the case records. The assessee’s instant additional ground rejected in light of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). We reject the additional legal ground.

Next comes the sole substantive issue on merits. Learned counsel challenges both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 50C addition as actual sale prices of Rs.5,00,000/- was very well less than the stamp price amounting to Rs.21,78,000/- and further reduced by the DVO to the tune of Rs.16,88,000/-, respectively. All this resulted in impugned long-term capital gain re-computation forming subject matter of adjudication before us.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s respective submissions. It is suffice to say that the learned DVO has himself reduced the fair market value of assessee’s capital asset from stamp price of Rs.21,78,000/- to Rs.16,88,000/-. The possibility of some distressing factors in the impugned valuation could not altogether ruled out therefore. That being the case, the tribunal hereby 2 | P a g e exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/s. 254(1) to grant relief of Rs.2,88,000/- in the fair market value of capital asset assessed by DVO and his valuation of Rs.16,88,000/- is reduced to Rs.14,00,000/- in very terms.