Tribunal directs Assessing Officer to determine Fair Market Value per Section 50C(2) using 2005 rates.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to determine the Fair Market Value of the property in accordance with Section 50C(2) by considering the prevailing rate in 2005. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of valuing the property based on the initial agreement and payments received. The judgment was pronounced on 12th February 2016.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
2. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A).
4. Fair Market Value (FMV) determination without referring to the Valuation Officer.
5. Liability to pay interest.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Orders Passed by AO and CIT(A):
The assessee contended that the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were erroneous and against the principles of natural justice and equity. The assessee argued that the orders should be quashed as they were "bad in law."

2. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the provisions of Section 50C, which mandate adopting the value assessed by the stamp duty authority as the full value of consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gains, were applicable. The AO invoked Section 50C, taking the stamp duty authority's assessment value as the full consideration. The assessee argued that the sale consideration should be based on the agreement executed in 2005, not the stamp duty value in 2007 when the sale deed was registered. The Tribunal noted that the assessee received part payment from 2005 onwards, and thus, the rate prevailing in 2005 should be considered. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO, which supported the assessee's contention.

3. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A):
The assessee produced an agreement to sell dated 20/5/2005 as additional evidence, which was not admitted by the CIT(A) on the grounds of not filing a specific application. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence was accompanied by an application dated 30/8/2013 and should have been admitted. The Tribunal emphasized that the sale consideration agreed upon in 2005 should be considered, irrespective of the final sale deed execution in 2007.

4. Fair Market Value (FMV) Determination Without Referring to the Valuation Officer:
The assessee argued that the AO erred by not referring the matter to the Valuation Officer to determine the FMV. The Tribunal agreed, citing Section 50C(2) and previous cases, that the AO should have referred the valuation to a Valuation Officer when the assessee claimed that the stamp duty valuation exceeded the FMV. The Tribunal directed the AO to determine the FMV after considering the prevailing rate in 2005 and all relevant facts.

5. Liability to Pay Interest:
The assessee denied the liability to pay interest, arguing that it was debited erroneously. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment, implying that it was not the primary focus of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to determine the FMV of the property as per the provisions of Section 50C(2), considering the prevailing rate in 2005. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fair determination of the property's value based on the initial agreement and payments received.

Pronouncement:
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 12th February 2016.

---