BHAKTHAVALSALAM RAMDAS,PALAKKAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein challenges the correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ invoking section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.1,06,45,000/- which admittedly represents the difference between his actual purchase price and the stamp valuation adopted by the registration authorities concerned. Learned counsel seeks to distinguish the

Learned Sr. D.R. has drawn strong support from both lower authorities’ action making the impugned addition once they have noticed the difference between the assessee’s actual purchase price vis-à-vis the stamp valuation of the relevant capital asset adopted in the registration process. She further claims that before an assessee pleads the above reference to the DVO before the tribunal for the first time, it was his mandatory onus to object to the stamp valuation during the course of assessment itself. We don’t find any merit in the Revenue’s instant last argument going by Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT [2014] 373 ITR 83 (Cal) holding that section 50C(2) reference to the DVO; adopted in the 3rd proviso to sec.56(2)(vii)(b) is indeed mandatory in nature and is not dependent on the concerned taxpayer raising such objections before the Assessing Officer.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to reexamine the entire issue afresh after making the reference to DVO subject to a rider that any consequential addition shall be indeed subject to assessee raising all factual and legal arguments in relevant proceedings which shall be adjudicated as per law. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.