Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (8) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 179/Ahd/2012, assessee has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the revised return filed prior to the date of receipt of assessment order. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not considering & admitting the revised return filed, as additional ground vide rule 46A(1)(a) & 46A(1)(c). 3. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the contents of affidavit filed. The assesse cannot be presumed to be aware of the date of passing the assessment order. 4. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating valuation report valuing the property as on 01/04/1981 filed with the revised return. 5. That the orders of authorities below viz. CIT(A) & A.O. may kindly be set aside & the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mt. one year ago and therefore in their opinion the sale rate of Rs. 10,000/- per sq.mt. by assesse was true and fair market value. It was submitted that purchaser had paid stamp duty at Rs. 18500/- per sq.mt. without their knowledge. It was submitted that case be referred to District Valuation Officer, Surat. Explanation was not accepted by Assessing Officer as submission that land had been sold at Rs. 5,000/- per sq.mt. one year ago was not supported by any evidence. As neither the seller i.e. assessee nor purchaser of property had made any representation or disputed the valuation adopted by the State Authority, the valuation was final and required to be adopted for Section 50C. In absence of any evidence that rates adopted were high, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... terms of the provisions of section50C(1) of the Act, where the AO finds that the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed (or assessable) by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed (or assessable) shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO adopted the full value of the consideration as adopted by the "stamp valuation authority". However, the AO failed to take not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). [Explanation 2 : For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.]" 5.1. The ld.counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention towards para-6 of the assessment order in support of the contention that before the AO a request was made to refer the case to DVO for seeking his report on the fair market value of the property. Para-6 of the assessment order is reproduced hereinbelow:- "6. The reply of the a....