TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- ''2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in fixing the value of the property (Land & Factory Building) at Dr.Vikram Sarabhai Instronics Estate, Thiruvanmiyur sold on 21.09.2005 as Rs. 1 ,21 ,75,1111- as against the actual sale consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/-. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in virtually approving the value of the property estimated by the Valuation Officer on a reference u/s 50C(2) of the Act in the incorrect view that such value is binding on the "assessing authorities" once the reference is made u/s 50C of the Act, while the scheme of the Act (IT Act, 1961) read with the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 incorporated in section 50C(2) provides for objection in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Adayar, Chennai to the Valuation Officer vide Sub-Registrar's letter dated 24.02.2011 to the Commissioner (Appeals); the CD was not forwarded by the Valuation Officer to the Commissioner (Appeals) nor did the Commissioner (Appeals) direct the Valuation Officer to submit the CD exercising his powers uls 133(6) of the Act; moreover the requirement of section 23A(6) of the Wealth Tax Act regarding Valuation Officer's attendance before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal proceedings has not been complied with thereby violating the requirement of the Act and the principles of natural justice''. 3. The Brief facts of the case, the assessee is in the business of trading of medical equipments and filed Return of income on 30.11.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... market value of the property at Rs. 1,22,13,000/- as under:- Value of Building : Rs. 15,09,881/- Value of land (835 * 1254): Rs. . 1,07,02,890/- Rs. . 1,22,13,000/- The assessee filed submissions and objections for adopting the value. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act based on value determined by the valuation officer were the value of land was estimated at Rs. 1,07,02,890/- being Rs. 1,254/- per sq.ft adjusted value in comparison with value Rs. 879/- sq.ft offered by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised Representative argued the grounds of appeal and filed written submissions. Furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aluation. Since the buyers wanted the title document to be released at the earliest, they chose to pay the stamp duty without contesting the same and without consulting the assessee. The explanation offered by the assessee that, as seller, it did not have any locus standi in the proceedings and hence the assessee should not be made to suffer by enhancing the assessment was rejected by the Assessing Officer. In its judgement, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras observed as under: The explanation offered by the assessee before the assessing authority in respect of the deemed value of the two properties was that' while registering, the Sub-Registrar refused to release the documents except on payment of higher stamp duty on enhanced val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on this ground is dismissed'' Aggrieved by the order, the assessee assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions of assessment, appellate proceedings and valuation cell. The ld. CIT(A) erred in fixing the value of the property at Rs. .1,21,75,111/- as against original consideration of Rs. .80,00,000/-. The ld. CIT(A)relied on the estimation of the valuation officer as per section 50C(2) of the Act and reference of Wealth Tax Act 1957 and overlooked the objections in valuation of the asset and accepted land rate estimated by the valuation officer contrary to the sale value as per Sub-Registrar office records. Further there is gross violation of natural justice in appellate proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stronics Estate, Thirumanmiyur by adopting Rs. .879/- per sq.ft as sale consideration. But on perusal of the sale deed, the registration charges are paid Rs. .10,95,760/- being 9% of market value adopted by the Sub-Registrar paid by the purchaser. Subsequent to the revision proceedings the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the valuation cell and adopted Rs. .1,22,13,000/- as value of the property including land rate of Rs. .1,254/- per sq.ft and completed assessment applying the provisions u/s.50C of the Act. The facts being the matter was referred to the valuation cell and ld. Commissioner of Income Tax depended on the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar office and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the value as per provisions o....