TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....galore filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 17.7.2008 declaring total income at Rs. 79,410. On the basis of AIR information, that the assessee had in the relevant period sold a property measuring 30 x 40 Sq. ft. situated at Ward 34, Railway Pipe Line Chord Road Layout B ASO Association, House No.358, Bangalore on 3.7.2007 to M/s. Gravity India Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore for a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs, scrutiny proceedings were initiated by issue of notice under section 143(2) on 13.8.2009. On the basis of the details in the sale deed and on information obtained by the Assessing Officer from the Sub-Registrar's Office, Vijayanagar, the guideline value for the property for stamp duty purposes on that date was Rs. 27,60,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted the matter to the learned Assessing Officer with a direction to provide an opportunity to the appellant before the provisions of section 50C of the Act are invoked. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have referred the issue of determination of market value to the Valuation Officer, in accordance with provisions of section 50C of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,77,000 under 'other sources' in respect of deposits in Savings Bank A/c., ignoring the explanation and also withut considering whether the circumstances of the appellant's case warrants such an addition, keeping in view that the appellant is an employee in the office of the Accountant Generals Office and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther submitted that when the assessee's objection to computation of LTCG adopting the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 26,40,000 in place of the actual sale consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs as per sale deed was rejected by the Assessing Officer, he ought to have (i) provided the assessee an opportunity of being heard and put on notice before invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act and (ii) in view of the assessee's objections the Assessing Officer should have referred the property for valuation in accordance with the provisions of section 50C(2)(a) of the Act. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the matter of computation of LTCG on sale of the concerned property sold by the assessee on 3.7.2007 be remitted back to the file of the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, we are in agreement with the learned Departmental Representative that there is no requirement in the Act for the Assessing Officer to put the assessee on notice before invoking the provisions of section 50C. However, a careful reading of the provisions of section 50C of the Act and more particularly sub-section (2) thereof holds relevance in the instant case and therefore it would be in the fitness of things that the provisions of the section be reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity. " 50C (1) ...... (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where - (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed [ or assessable ] by the stamp valuation author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer adopting the guideline value of the property for stamp duty purposes in place of the stated consideration in the sale deed for the purposes of computing LTCG, then the Assessing Officer ought to refer the property for valuation to the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department. In the instant case, it is seen that the assessee's objection, to the Assessing Officer's adoption of the guideline value of Rs. 26,40,000 in place of the stated consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs in the sale deed, were rejected by the Assessing Officer and therefore we are of the view that in accordance with the provisions of section 50C(2)(a), he should have made a reference to the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department for valuation of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addition of Rs. 1,77,000 made by the Assessing Officer in respect of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account in Karnataka Bank Ltd, Amarjyothi Nagar, Bangalore in the relevant period on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish details regarding the source of such deposits. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting and not accepting the explanation that these cash deposits were out of savings from money given by the assessee's husband Sri Shivaramaiah, who is an assessed to tax and carried on business in the name and style of M/s. S.V.B.S. Polymers at Kamakshipalya, Bangalore with a turnover of nearly Rs. 1.25 Crore, without examining the m....