TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 142(1) to the assessee and on 09/03/2016, assessee filed a letter objecting to adoption of 50C valuation, which is reproduced below: "Your proposition to assess capital gain on the sale of property at Rs. 1,76,86,200/- against capital gain of NS. 90,00,000/- returned by the assessee is not justified for the reason that, for registration purpose, it is buyer of the property who has to pay stamp duty which has no bearing to my sale consideration. On my part, I have received more amounts towards the sale of the property sold. Added to that, the condition of the property was not proper for bargaining at a higher price. Looking to the location, condition and other- factors concerning the property the sale consideration received by me was quite in order and satisfaction. There were other properties in the same locality which were sold at lower price. Accordingly, there is no reason or justification to assess capital gains more than what I have received and shown in my return of Income. If thought fit, the buyer of the property may also be contacted to ascertain whether more consideration was paid by him." 2.2 Further, the AO asked the assessee to substantiate the value ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the reopening of assessment is bad in law. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in applying the sale value as per guideline values of stamp duty authority, in as much as the same was disputed by the Appellant and therefore straight away could not have been adopted. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the adoption of 5OC value as sale consideration is illegal and should have been quashed as the Assessing Officer violated provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to above ground, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the AO to refer the asset in question to valuation cell for arriving at the market value of the asset. 9. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1 lakhs by the AO, which had no basis. 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the determination of indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 3,59,741 by the AO as against the indexed cost claimed by the Appellant at Rs. 19,37,652. For these and other grounds that may be urged, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 before the AO objecting the adoption of SRO value inspite of sale consideration received by the assessee, as it is clear from the provisions of section 50C(2). For the sake of clarity the provisions of section 50C(2) are reproduced below: "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where- (a ) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll refer this matter of valuation in the light of sub-s.(2) of s. 50C to the DVO for determining the consideration of this plot sold by the assessee under s.50C." 9. Similar view was expressed by other coordinate benches relied on by the assessee in the course of arguments. Considering the provisions of subsection 2 of section 50 wherein it is very clearly mentioned that if the assessee claims before any assessing officer that the value adopted as assessed by stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value, the assessing officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer and sub-section 3 provides that subject to the provisions contained in sub-section 2, only the value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority shall be taken as full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. Therefore, it is mandatory on the part of the assessing officer to refer the valuation to the DVO whether assessee objects the same before the stamp valuation authority or not. Therefore, we are of the opinion that both the assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's request. Respectfully following t....