ANANDA SWARUP NUNDY,HOOGHLY vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(1), , HOOGHLY

Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO filed the appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee argued that the valuation should have been referred to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the correct value of the property. The assessee also submitted a valuation report from a registered valuer. However, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal without considering the valuation report submitted by the assessee or referring the matter to DVO.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal, arguing that both the lower authorities failed to obtain the correct valuation of the property and did not take the registered valuation report into account. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench

On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed assessee’s contention and submitted that there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the lower authorities.

We after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the ld. AO made the addition based on the stamp duty valuation fixed by the authority, without considering the valuation report submitted by the assessee. Furthermore, the ld. AO did not refer the matter to the DVO for determining the correct value of the property. The ld. CIT (A) also failed to take this aspect into account. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to refer the matter to DVO for valuation of the property and determine the correct Long Term Capital Gain after considering the DVO’s report and registered valuers report submitted by the assessee. In light of the above discussion, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.