TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find is that assessee had not filed any return voluntarily. First return filed by the assessee was pursuant to a notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on 17.12.2013. The said notice was issued since assessee had alongwith three other co- owners sold land measuring 1 ground 1593 sq.ft, at New No.76, Old No.24, Mandaveli Street, Chennai-28 on 27.12.2006, but had not filed any return for the capital gains arising from such transaction. In my opinion, assessee having not filed any return voluntarily, the proceedings resulted only in a first assessment. Therefore assessee 's ground challenging the reopening has no merits. Grounds 2 & 3 are dismissed. 5. Vide its grounds 4 to 7, assessee is aggrieved on the computation of long term capital gains at I16,84,760/- against I40,500/- declared by him. 6. As mentioned earlier assessee had sold a property with other three co-owners on 27.12.2006. Assessee had declared long term capital gains of I 40,500/- in the return filed pursuant to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. As per ld. Assessing Officer sale consideration though mentioned in the sale deed as I10,00,000/-, the market value of the property was much higher and stamp duty was on su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdictional High Court was only to intimate the pendency of the litigation to the purchaser. Thus, he held that the Assessing Officer had adopted value of I18,69,000/- for the property correctly. 9. Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Om Gupta (supra) had clearly held that in a distress sale the procedure mentioned in Sec. 50C of the Act could never be applied. According to him, assessee was constrained to sell the subject property at a rate lower than the market value due to the pending litigation. Hence to substitute the consideration which was actually paid by the buyer to the seller with market value would give rise to fictitious income. According to him, the price mentioned by the assessee in the sale deed alone could be considered for working out capital gains. 10. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is true that there was a pending litigation on the property which was sold by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer ; (b) the value so adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 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 (27 of 1957). (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Officer, when the value of a properly claimed by the assessee was higher than the FMV. According to the assessee, the value estimated by him, as on 01.04.1981 was higher than the FMV. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Puja Prints 360 ITR 697. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not impressed. According to him, there was no valuation done by a Valuation Officer for estimating the value of the property as on 01.04.1981. Further, according to him, what was to be adopted was the guideline value based on Government records. He held that Sec. 55A of the Act had no application in such a situation and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to apply the guideline value as on 01.04.1981, at I22,000/-, per ground for arriving at the cost of acquisition. 15. Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative reiterated the contentions taken by the assessee before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). According to him, prior to amendment to clause (a) to Sec. 55A through Finance Act, 2012 which came into effect from 01.07.2012, a reference could not be made to the Valuation Officer when the value claimed by the assessee wa....