2016-VIL-983-ITAT-AHM

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal AHMEDABAD

I.T.A. No. 2087/Ahd/2013

Date: 31.08.2016

NARENDRA DAHYABHAI PATEL

Vs

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 9 (3) , SURAT

K.K. Shah for the appellant
Keyur Patel for the respondent

BENCH

Pramod Kumar AM

JUDGMENT

“The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not directing the Income Tax Officer for reference to Valuation Cell as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act though specific request was made to the concerned officer with letter given in person and though copy of such letter was also given in the appeal proceedings.

The learned CIT(A), therefore, erred in confirming addition of Rs. 12,62,876/- on account of additional capital gain due to valuation by the Stamp Duty Authority.”

2. It is a case in which the Assessing Officer has adopted stamp duty valuation of the property sold, for computation of capital gains, under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee’s contention was that despite his request, the matter was not referred to DVO under section 50C(2) but the appeal was turned down on the ground that assessee could not substantiate his claim of having made such a request in the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before me.

3. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.

4. I find that, as held by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [(2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal], even in the absence of specific request from the assessee, the Assessing Officer has to give an option to the assessee to follow the course provided by law under section 50C(2). I, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee, and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo after referring the matter to the DVO under section 50C(2).

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above.

Pronounced in the open Court today on the 31st day of August, 2016.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.