Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the valuation of the immovable property should have been referred to a Valuation Officer (DVO) under the third proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The stamp valuation authority's value exceeded the consideration and that valuation was not the subject of any appeal, revision or reference before any authority, court or High Court. The conditions specified in section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are therefore satisfied. The third proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits the Assessing Officer to refer such disputed stamp duty valuation to a Valuation Officer and requires application, as far as may be, of the provisions specified for valuation references. The Assessing Officer and the appellate authority did not make such a reference despite the statutory conditions being met, and the assessee's valuation evidence was rejected as self-procured without independent contemporaneous support.
Conclusion: The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after obtaining a valuation report from a Valuation Officer as provided under the statute; the impugned order is set aside and the grounds are allowed for statistical purposes, which is in favour of the assessee.