TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal orders reassessment by District Valuation Officer for accurate property valuation</h1> <h3>Harmeet Khanuja Versus The Income Tax Officer, Wad 13 (2), Pune</h3> Harmeet Khanuja Versus The Income Tax Officer, Wad 13 (2), Pune - TMI Issues:- Appeal against order of CIT(A) under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.- Addition of Rs. 5,18,500 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.Analysis:1. Addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act:- The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 5,18,500 made by the Assessing Officer under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The issue arose from the purchase of an immovable property where the stamp valuation authority determined a value higher than the purchase price. The Assessing Officer contended that the difference should be added to the assessee's income. The assessee argued that the higher stamp duty value was due to a peculiar rule causing additional stamp duty payment. However, both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not accept this explanation and upheld the addition.2. Valuation Dispute and Referral to DVO:- The assessee contended that the valuation determined by the stamp valuation authority was disputed, and a valuation report was submitted. The proviso under section 56(2)(vii)(b) states that if the stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer should refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The assessee relied on a Pune Tribunal case to support this argument. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the valuation to the DVO as required by law. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper valuation by the DVO.3. Legal Provisions and Application:- The Tribunal analyzed sections 56(2)(vii)(b), 50C(1), and 50C(2) of the Act. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) deals with taxing the difference between consideration and stamp duty value of immovable property. Section 50C relates to the valuation of capital assets for stamp duty purposes. The proviso under section 56(2)(vii)(c) mandates referral to the DVO if the stamp duty value is disputed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following these provisions and ensuring proper valuation in such cases.4. Decision and Outcome:- The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation dispute to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the property. The failure to refer the valuation to the DVO was a procedural lapse, necessitating a reevaluation of the property value. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring accurate valuation in tax assessments.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal issues, arguments presented, relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
