Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
स्थामी रेखा सं/PAN. :AAVPG0814F अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Virag H Shah प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Shri Uday B Jakke सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 9.12.2015 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.2.2016 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN,AM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12-08-2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-II, Thane and it relates to the assessment year 2007-08. The solitary issue urged in this appeal relates to the application of provisions of sec. 50C of the Act to the land transferred by the assessee along with two other co-owners.
We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee and two other co-owners transferred a land for a consideration of Rs.59.76
lacs. The AO noticed that the valuation adopted for stamp duty purposes was Rs.167.10 lakhs and accordingly the AO substituted the value of sale consideration with the stamp duty valuation as per the provisions of sec. 50C of the Act. It is submitted that the AO has done so in the case of the assessee only and no adjustment was made in the case of other two co- owners.
In the appellate proceedings, the ld CIT(A) directed the AO to obtain a valuation report from the DVO, who estimated the value at Rs.117.03 lakhs. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to recomputed the capital gains by adopting the sale consideration at Rs.117.03 lakhs. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.
The Ld A.R submitted that the provisions of sec. 50C could not applied in the peculiar facts of the present case, since the land transferred by the assessee was affected by the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N.Wadiyar Vs. CWT (2015)(378 ITR 9)(SC). Accordingly the Ld A.R submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred above, may be followed for deleting the addition made by the AO.
On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the issue may be set aside to the file of the AO for examining the same afresh in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N.Wadiyar (supra).
Having heard rival submissions, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N.Wadiyar (supra). Accordingly, we set