TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT (A) has not applicable the facts of the case and the legal position. 3. Because, the assessee has hold a very old property for Rs. 12 lac to the tenent who was living in this property more than fifty years. But the value of estimated 42,83,000/- by the registrar for the stamp purposes. The Assessing Officer has referred the case to the valuation officer but the valuation officer has not given the report. In absence of report of the Valuation Officer the value for the stamp purposes cannot be taken. 4. Because, other nuisence of Vrindaban were forcing the assessee to sale the property at very nominal price, the assessee has denied them and due to his denial they have kidnapped the assessee and make signed an agreeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by him at a total income of Rs. 33,31,720/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,48,720/-, which the assessee had declared in his return of income filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order and dismissed the assessee's appeal, observing as follows: "5. I have considered the submissions of the ld. AR and also perused the assessment records. After perusal of the assessment records, I find that the AO has referred the valuation of the property to the departmental valuation officer under section 50C(2) of the Act for determining the Fair Market Value of the property in question. However the DVO vide letter dated 14.08.2012 has returned the matter back to the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to APB 3-4, a copy of notice dated 19.04.2012 issued under section 50C of the IT Act by the DVO. Attention has been drawn to the last Para at APB 4, wherein, the DVO has stated that the property would be inspected 'later on', which, as per the ld. Counsel, was never done. Then, the ld. Counsel has referred to APB 5-38, i.e., the assessee's reply to the DVO in response to the aforesaid notice under section 50C. It has been pointed out that as per the last para on PB-6, the assessee filed copies of municipal tax receipt (PB-7), sale deed (PB-8-37) and rent receipt (PB-38) in the reply. Further, attention has been invited to PB 106/1 to 106/2, written submissions dated 06.02.2012 filed before the AO,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rested to purchase the property specially the construction had been made by the tenant and the tenant's family was living in property since long. Due to these peculiar circumstances, the assessee was bound to sell the property to the tenant. The assessee has sold it for Rs. 12 lac. 9. The assessee filed copies of municipal receipt, sale deed containing the Circle rate and accompanied site plan, rent receipts and the report of the registered valuer. The DVO returned the reference, as according to him, the assessee did not co-operate. This objection of the DVO is not borne out from the aforesaid undisputed replies by the assessee before the DVO. So far as regards the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the assessee not having filed any Court ca....