2013 (7) TMI 1093

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7; 2,35,000/- for computing capital gain. 2. The Ld CIT (A) failed to appreciate that (a) The Assessing Officer has erred in considering Stamp Duty Valuation u/s 50C without referring to the Valuation Officer u/s 50C(2). (b) The Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the capital gain for the AY 2007-2008 instead of AY 2009-2010." 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, capita gain and income from other sources. Assessee filed the return declaring the total income of ₹ 3,01,251/-. As a result of scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act, assessed income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 10,31,308/-. During the assessment proceedings, from the particulars f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the assessment. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, assessee submitted that the market value of the flat is much lower than the value of the Stamp Duty Authority's valuation due to the disadvantages such as poor condition of the flat / building, water logging due to low level of the building qua the road levels. He further relied on number of decisions in favour of the proposal for making a reference to the Valuation Authorities for determination of the market value of the said flat. CIT (A) considered the same and rejected the assessee's objections by mentioning that assessee failed to invoke the provisions of section 50C(2) by making....