TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jaipur is bad in law as well as on facts being against the principle of natural justice and for other reasons. 2) That the learned Assessing Officer has not followed the required procedure in revenue-opening of the assessment U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. Hence any proceedings initiated on wrong premises or against the provisions of the Act is illegal since initiation, hence the order needs to be quashed in entirety. 3) That the learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in considering full registration value of Rs. 98,20,156/- and learned CIT(Appeals) have also erred in giving part relief and taking the sale consideration at Rs. 47,34,400/- as against the sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- actually received by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the sale value of Rs. 98,20,156/- of a property at Khasra No. 124, village- Saladvas Thamer, Jaipur sold by the assessee was adopted by the Sub-Registrar. On the other hand, the assessee had declared this property sold at Rs. 27 lacs only and calculated capital gain accordingly. The learned Assessing Officer observed that as per Section 50C, the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar i.e. Rs. 98,20,156/- is to be taken as full value of consideration. There was difference of Rs. 71,20,156/- is liable to be treated as income from capital gain. Therefore, notice U/s 148 of the Act was issued after recording reasons that in this case, the income chargeable to tax has been escaped. The assessee challenged this issue before the learned CIT(A), who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed reasons and had reason to believe on the basis of CIB information. The CIB information does not give any idea of reason to believe simply an information passed on by the one authority to another, which can be used in case of assessee when concerned Assessing Officer satisfied himself that there was an under assessment of income. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The learned Assessing Officer has vast power U/s 147 within four years when there was no scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the assessee are squarely not applicable. The information received from CIB is simple information, has not construed an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the agreement and the assessee received Rs. 27 lacs from the buyer as full value of consideration but the learned Assessing Officer after considering Section 50C of the Act has taken the deemed value of sale consideration at Rs. 98,20,156/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal partly by observing that the stamp valuation authority had taken sale consideration value of land at Rs. 47,34,400/-. The assessee has sold only land not construction, therefore, valuation adopted by the stamp authority for stamp purposes at Rs. 50,85,756/- cannot be considered as part of sale consideration for the purpose of computing capital gain. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat as per sub-Section (2) of Section 50C of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer was incumbent upon to refer the matter to the valuation officer. He further argued that if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the sale consideration offered by the assessee then he must refer the valuation matter to the valuation officer, for which he relied upon the following case laws:- (i) Meghraj Baid Vs. ITO (2008) 23 SOT 25 (Jodh). (ii) ITO Vs. Smt. Manju Rani Jain (2008) 24 SOT 24 (Delhi). (iii) Ajmal Fragrances & Fashions (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT Circle 13(1) (2009) 34 SOT 57 (Mum). Therefore, he prayed to delete the addition made under the head capital gain. 8.1 Learned A.R. further relied upon the decision of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urpose of stamp duty. The legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a fair treatment to the citizen/tax payer. There is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof should be refused. Even in a case where no such prayer is made by the learned advocate representing the assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the Assessing Officer, discharging a quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to following the course provided by law. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is set aside. The impugned order including orders passed by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Offic....