AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- on the basis of value adopted by the registration authority as against sale consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/- declared in the sale deed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO as well as Valuation Officer in determining the fair market value of the property sold by the assessee at Rs. 84,75,000/- against actual sale consideration received, accepted by the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed at Rs. 35,00,000/- for stamp duty purpose. It is contended that the fair market value of the property determined by the Valuation Officer / AO is solely based on the decision of stamp duty authorities who had made the upward revision of the stamp duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the date of sale of the property at Rs. 84,75,000/-. The AO invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and determined the Long Term Capital Gains by taking the sale consideration at Rs. 84,75,000/-. (iii) During appellate proceedings, the assessee filed a copy of the letter issued by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) on 29.03.2014 i.e. after passing of the assessment order by the AO on 18.03.2014. As per the said letter of JDA, the Master Development Plan, 2011 was applicable in 2009 to the property under consideration i.e. 1, Officers Campus Extension and as on 15.10.2009 i.e. the date of sale of the property by the assessee, the said property was shown as residential in Master Development Plan, 2011. The assessee prayed for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that notwithstanding r. 46A(1) the appellate authority can permit production of documents to enable him to dispose of the appeal - Finding recorded by the Tribunal that the documents produced by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) were necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits- It was justified in holding that the CIT(A) ought to have exercised its power to admit additional evidence- No question of law arises. ITO vs. Bajouria Foundation 71 TTJ (Cal) 343 Filing of additional evidence before CIT (A) was covered by Rule 46A( 1) (c) as well as the scheme of powers vested in him under Sec. 250(4)- There was no infirmity in admitting the additional evidence. It is settled in law that when a statutory authority has the powers to do some....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd against the decision of Sub Registrar / Collector (Stamps). Hence the letter dated 29.03.2014 issued by the JDA is of no help to the assessee as the AO has adopted the sale consideration on the basis of the valuation report of the valuation officer (Rs. 84,75,000) as if is lower than the valuation taken by the Sub Registrar i.e. the registering authority. It would be relevant to reproduce here the provisions of section 50C of the Act as under:- [Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. 50C. [1 ] Where 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation l].-For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27of1957). [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. ] (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value ....