TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. In my case the ACIT circle 3(2)(1) passed the order u/s 143(3) on 27/12/2016 by determining the taxable income of Rs. 81,29,280/- and tax liability of Rs. 15,52,840/-. 2. Against the said order of the AO, I preferred an appeal before the CIT (A)-3, Bangalore. The Hon'ble CIT(A) 3, Bangalore had dismissed my appeal vide is order u/s 250 dated 30/01/2019, the said order of the CIT(A) received by me on 30/01/2019. 3. The last date for preferring the appeal for against the order of the CIT(A) expires on 01/04/2019, now I am preferring the appeal on 17/05/2019. Hence, there was delay of 46days in filing the appeal. 4. The delay was due to the reason that, there was no proper advice by my tax consultant within the reasonable period of time to file the appeal. On repeated request made by me to my tax consultant to file the appeal, he finally referred to the Channappa R Nulvi, Chartered Accountants for filing an app. In the process of approaching to Channappa R Nulvi there was a delay of 46days and on 15/05/2019, I approached him and he is preferring an appeal filing on 17/05/2019, before the ITAT. The said delay was beyond my control and not intentional o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of section 50C of the Act and thereby raising demand of Rs. 15,52,840/-. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 27.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-3, Bangalore, who dismissed the assessee's ex-parte; on the basis of material on record; without hearing the assessee in the matter. 3.1 The assessee, being aggrieved by the ex-parte order of the IT(A)-3, Bangalore, dated 30.01.2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15, has filed this appeal before the Tribunal wherein he has raised the following grounds:- 1. The order of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the fact and circumstances of the case and against equity and justice. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hurriedly which is one month earlier to the last date of the passing the order without waiting for the valuation report from the DVO and adopting the stamp duty valuation as the sale consideration received by the Appellant on the sale of the property. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal). 3.3 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 3.4.1 We have considered the rival submissions; perused the orders of the authorities below and the material on record. From an appraisal of the records before us, it is seen that the assessee sold a property at Site No.11/15-490 vide Khata No.504 situated at Jattipalya Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk vide sale deed dated 26.06.2013 for sale consideration of Rs. 80 lakhs and computed LTCG thereon at Rs. 2,94,164/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that stamp duty was paid by the purchaser as per stamp authorities' valuation of the property at Rs. 1,30,68,000/-; while the assessee had only offered Rs. 80 lakhs as sale consideration in the sale agreement. The AO states that in view of the above, the provisions of section 50C of the Act were invoked taking Rs. 1,30,68,000/- as the sale consideration and the LTCG was re-computed at Rs. 50,68,000/-. 3.4.2 In the 'statement of facts' filed by the assessee, in its appeal before the CIT(A) and which the CIT(A) purportedl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion report itself. He has fixed the value of the property at Rs. 1,30,68,000/- for the purpose of computation of capital gains. After deducting the cost of acquisition etc., he has arrived at a difference of Rs. 50,68,000/-and added the same to the. income returned. The order of assessment is bad in law, in as much as, the Assessing Officer has not adopted the value as per Valuation Officer, after having made a reference to him. The appellant did not have fair opportunity to furnish the particulars to the Valuation Officer, study his proposal and obtain a final Valuation Report. The order of the Assessing Officer is, therefore, opposed to principles of natural justice. 3.4.3 In the impugned order the CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee's appeal holding as under at para 4.7 of the impugned order:- "4.7 The claim of the appellant during appellate proceedings (as in the statement afflicts) that he had made a request to the AO to refer the matter to Valuation Officer is without any basis as neither any such documents have been produced by the appellant during appellate proceedings nor there are any such documents on the assessment records which support the claim of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal). On a perusal thereof, we find that the Hon'ble Court; after detailed consideration of the provisions of section 50C of the Act; has held that the valuation by the DVO, contemplated under section 50C of the Act, is required to give fair treatment to the tax-payer and avoid the miscarriage of justice as the Legislature did not intend that the capital gains should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub-Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. There is no reason why the machinery provided by Legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof refused, even in a case where no prayer has been made by the assessee, who may not have been properly instructed. Since the AO, discharging a quasi-judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly; he should in all fairness make a reference to the DVO to have the valuation of the said property contemplated under section 50C of the Act. In this regard, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court finally at paras 9 to 11 thereof has held as under:- ......................We are of the opinion that the valuation by the Departmental Valuatio....