2018 (7) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Ground Nos. 7 to 10 are consequential and general in nature, therefore no adjudication is required. Date of Hearing 05.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.07.2018 3. The rest of the following effective grounds raised by the assessee are as under: "4. That the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Agra has been arbitrary and unjust in upholding the value of Rs. 2,47,23,000 adopted by stamp valuation authority, as fair market value of the property sold by the appellant, though the same was abnormally higher. The actual sale consideration of Rs. 25,90,500 declared by the appellant, which was representing true and correct fair market value should have been adopted. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Agra has completely ignored that once the appellant had ob....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le any written submissions, it appears that he has been purposely avoiding attendance before the undersigned. Since the appellant or his Authorized Representative have not attended the appellate proceedings despite repeated opportunities provided to them. I am considered to uphold the assessment order to sustain the additions made by the Assessing Officer." 7. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the circle rate adopted by the AO for computation of fair market value of the subject immovable property is much higher than the actual value of sale consideration; that the assessee has sold the immovable property at the actual market rate of Rs. 25,90,500/- of his share of properties sold by the assessee as against the circle rates of S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITR 83 (Cal) where it was held that a reference to DVO in the case of assessee who contest jantri price in question to be higher than the fair market value of the relevant capital assets, then a reference is mandatory even if an assessee does not make any such prayer. To buttress his contention, he relied on the following case laws: i) ACIT 5(1), Hyderabad vs. Lalitha karan, Hyderabad in ITA No.1130/Hyd/2015 (Trib. Hyd.) ii) Income Tax Officer, Moradabad vs. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) Moradabad in ITA 4166/Del/2013 (Del. Trib) iii) ITO vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta (2011) 43 SOT 42 (Trib. Delhi) iv) Raj Kumar Jain vs. ACIT, (1994) 50 ITD 1 (Alld. Trib) v) DCIT vs. Rohtas Projects Ltd., (2006) 100 ITD 113....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... gain u/s 50C(2)(a) of the Act. We find that the assessee has requested the AO to refer the matter to the valuation officer as per provisions of Section 50C(2)(a) of the Act. The assessee counsels contention that the assessee has sold the property under distress sale being sub urban and undeveloped area without basic amenities for which he could not fetch higher value than the sale consideration, therefore, while arriving at the fair market value, is found correct and this aspect was required to be taken into consideration by the AO which he had not addressed. It is further seen that the assessee has referred to the provisions of Section 50C of the Act which were mandatorily required to be followed by the AO. However, the AO while adopting ....