TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r even after the Appellant objects to the valuation proposed to be adopted by the AO during the assessment proceedings and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in passing the appellate order without addressing the submissions in the written submissions and the catena of precedents on the subject matter on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 6. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity." 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee field his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 5,63,240. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) by assessing the total income at Rs. 22,20,730, thereby raising a demand of Rs. 3,74,380. Notices dated 04.07.2019 and 22.08.2019 were issued to the assessee fixing the case for hearing on 17.07.2019 and 29.08.2019 respectively. The assessee filed an adjournment letter for the first notice on 18.07.2019, but no request was made for hearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the Revenue. 5. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that there is no mandatory condition u/s 50C(2) to refer the matter to the DVO to ascertain the fair market value of the property. According to him, the A.O. may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a DVO and the word used is "may" and not "shall", which makes the intention of the legislature amply clear. The lawmakers obviously did not want every such case to be referred to the Valuation Officer which would result in waste of time and precious resources. The legislature has directly put the onus on the Assessing Officer to determine whether a case is fit to be referred to the Valuation Officer based on the merits and circumstances of each case. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that, the AO should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer when the assessee conveys to the AO of his disagreement with the Stamp Valuation Authority's value vis-à-vis the sale consideration does not hold water. The learned DR further submitted that it is important to examine the reasons cited by the assessee to lower sale consideration of the impugned property and the reasons why the A.O.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital gain on the basis of the value adopted for registration of the said property. Apart from the stamp duty valuation, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has received extra sale consideration over and above the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed. It was held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Mittal v. ITO [(1992) 193 ITR 770 (All.)] that there is no law to the effect that the value determined for the purposes of stamp duty is the actual consideration passed between the parties to the sale and it is the burden of the Department to show that the assessee received extra consideration passed between the parties concerned. I also place reliance on the following judgments / orders:- (i) Kamal Kisjore Chandak v. ITO [103 TTJ 843 (Jodh). (ii) ACIT v. Swami Constructions Pvt. Ltd. [111 TTJ 531 (Jaipur)] (iii) Jai Marwar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [79 TTJ 178 (Jodh.)] (iv) ITO v. Satyanarayan Agarwal [112 TTJ 717 (Jodh.)] (v) Dinesh Jain v. CIT [34 SOT 444 (Delhi)] (vi) ACIT v. Excellent Land Developers Pvt. Ltd [1 ITR (Trib.) 563 (Delhi)] 6.1 Further in the case of Anand Banwarilal Adhukia v. Deputy Commissioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B or fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made, such reference to make an estimate of such value can be made to the Valuation Officer. 16. The Valuer's report under section 142A of the Act is for the purpose of estimating value of such investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B of the Act. Unless, therefore, there is prima facie application of sections 69, 69A and 69B of the Act, reference to the valuer is simply not permissible. It is only when there is some material before the Assessing Officer to hold that in case of an assessee falls under sections 69, 69A and 69B as the case may be, that he can, to estimate the value of such unexplained investment or expenditure in bullion, jewellery etc., call for the report of the Valuer. Initial starting point for triggering a reference to the Valuer, therefore, has to be invocat....