INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD vs. RAHMATHUNNISA BEGUM, HYDERABAD

The Revenue raised the following grounds:

Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the present case the assessee sold her property admeasuring 2 Acres and 10 Guntas situated at Sy. No.77, Hafiz Pet Village, Serilingampally, R.R. District to M/s. Calvari Temple Foundation for a sale consideration of Rs.3,15,00,000/- though the SRO value of the property was Rs.11,96,80,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer relying upon the section 50C of the I.T. Act made addition in the hands of the assessee being the registered owner of the property for an amount of Rs.8,59,40,800/-.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) NFAC and raised the following grounds:

The learned CIT (A) NFAC has decided Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal and also decided the other grounds in Para 3.1.2 of his order:

The learned DR had submitted that once the SRO value of the property was found to be Rs.11,96,80,000/-, then it is not permissible in law for the learned CIT (A) NFAC to remand back the matter to the Assessing Officer/DVO for determining the market value of the property. He had drawn our attention to the grounds raised before the learned CIT (A) NFAC.

Per contra, the learned AR submitted that the direction issued by the learned CIT (A) NFAC is in accordance with

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. In fact, the assessee during the assessement proceedings had submitted a claim that the value adopted by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the Stamp Valuation Authority was not appropriate and was far below the fair market value as the property was under litigation and would not have fetched the value as mentioned by the Stamp Valuation Authority. In our view, the learned CIT (A) NFAC had merely remanded back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer which is in conformity with the provision of section 50C(2) of the Act. Further, we are of the considered opinion that instead of directing the Assessing Officer to get the valuation report from the DVO, the above said exercise should have been carried out by the learned CIT (A) LEARNED CIT (A) NFAC, himself in view of the powers conferred upon the CIT (A) as mentioned in section 251(1) of the I.T. Act wherein it is mentioned that the learned CIT (A) shall either confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. However, there is no power given to the learned CIT (A) to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Further, this view of the Bench is also fortified by the provisions of section 250, wherein it is mentioned that the Commissioner may make further inquiry as he deemed fit and he may direct the Assessing Officer

In the light of the above discussion, we deem it proper that the direction issued by the learned CIT (A) NFAC is required to be modified and accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the DVO and seek the report from the DVO as mentioned u/s 142A of the I.T. Act and estimate the value of the property which was subject matter of the present appeal.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER