TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 8,40,000/- is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by the decision dated 12.01.2019 of the ITAT, Pune-B, Bench, in the case of Rahul Constructions vs. DCIT passed in ITA No. 1543/Pn/2007 (AY 2004-05) wherein it has been held that the margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental Valuer was less than 10 percent, the difference is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the lower authorities on this cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same was deleted. For the sake of ready reference, he placed the copy of the aforesaid decision dated 12.1.2019 before the Bench and requested to follow the aforesaid decision in the case of the assessee and addition in dispute may be deleted. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order as well as the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. From the facts, it is apparent that the assessee has disputed the addition to be made as mentioned in the show cause notice issued by the AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by stating that the purchase considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceived an amount of Rs. 19,00,000 as sale consideration on account of sale of basement Nos. 2 and 3 at Rahul Chambers. There is also no dispute to the fact that the stamp valuation authorities have adopted the value at Rs. 28,73,000 for the purpose of stamp duty. There is also no dispute to the fact that on being objected by the assessee for substitution of the same figure under s. 50C(2) of the Act, the AO referred the matter to the DVO who determined the FMV of the property on the date of sale at Rs. 20,55,000. We find that the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in substituting the value determined by the DVO on the ground that the assessee has not objected to the valuation either before the DVO or before the AO or even before him. Further, according to him, as per the provisions of s. 50C, the AO is bound to take the valuation as per the stamp valuation authorities and he is not empowered to go beyond the valuation made by the stamp valuation authorities. However, since the AO has already adopted the FMV determined by the DVO he upheld the action of the AO. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee can challenge the valuation determi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the transfer." A bare reading of the above provisions shows that as per the provisions of S. 50C(1) the value ado ted by the stamp valuation authorities in respect of transfer of a capital asset shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer if such value is more than the value or consideration received by the assessee. As per the provisions of sub-so (2) of the said section if the assessee claims before the AO that such valuation by the stamp valuation authorities under sub-so (l) exceeds the FMV of the property as on the date of transfer the AO may refer the valuation of the capital asset to the DVO. As per the said sub-section where any such reference is made the various provisions of WT Act as mentioned in sub-so (2) referred above shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the AO under sub-so (1) of S. 16A of the WT Act. We find the provisions of S. 16A of the WT Act deal with reference to the Valuation Officer by the AO. Similarly S. 23A(l)(i) inter alia confers right of appeal to the CIT(A) to any person objecting to any order of the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmined by the DVO at Rs. 20,55,000 is only Rs. 1,55,000 which is less than 10 per cent. The Courts and Tribunals are consistently taking a liberal approach in favour of the assessee where the difference between the value adopted by the assessee and the value adopted by the DVO is less than 10 per cent. We find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Harpreet Hotels (P) Ltd. vide ITA Nos. 1156- 1160/Pn/2000 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue where the CIT(A) had deleted the unexplained investment in house construction on the ground that the difference between the figure shown by the assessee and the figure of the DVO is hardly 10 per cent. Similarly, we find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Kaaddu Jayghosh Appasaheb, vide ITA No. 441IPnl2004 for the asst. yr. 1992- 93 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee following the decision of the J&K High Court in the case of Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (J&K) 232 had held that when the margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental valuer was less than 10....