2020 (4) TMI 817

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....addition of Rs. 86,50,710/- made by the AO, by invoking the provisions of section 50C ignoring the fact that the properties sold were occupied by large number of tenants and the transaction of sale has taken place at prevailing market price as per the Valuation Report of the Registered Valuear. 5. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 86,50,710/- made by the AO, by invoking the provisions of section 50C without making a reference to DVO in spite of the specific request by the appellant. 6. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing exemption u/s 54 for amounts invested in new residential house property. 7. That the impugned appellant order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add/alter and/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal." 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 13/12/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,21,830/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee buildings were occupied by the tenants. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The assessee requested by letter dated 11/03/2014 to refer the valuation of the properties to the District Pollution Officer, but this contention was also rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it was not maintainable because, the Sub-Registrar of Mumbai, Maharashtra being a government authority, no need arise for valuation from the District Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ambattur Clothing Co. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax (2009) 221 CTR 0196 (Mad) wherein it is held that section 50C of the Act makes it obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to treat the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority as deemed sale consideration received/accrued as a result of the transfer. The Assessing Officer invoked section 50C of the Act and computed the long-term capital gain as under:   Safoora Bai Building Madina Manzil Khatija Bai Khatri Mansion Sale Consideration as per Circle Rate mentioned in the Sale Deed (share of Assessee ¼) Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat if under the provisions of the Act an authority is required to exercise powers or to do an act in a particular manner, then that power has to be exercised and the act has to be performed in that manner alone and not in any other manner. Similar view has been expressed by the other decisions cited by the ld. AR in this regard hereinabove. The first appellant order on the issue is thus upheld. The grounds are accordingly rejected." 9. We find that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has specifically mentioned that such a request for making reference to the DVO was not maintainable. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: "Further, the request of the assessee vide last line of letter dated 11th March, 2014 w.r.t. transfer to District Valuation Officer is not maintainable since when a Government Authority, i.e., The Sub-Registrar of Mumbai, Maharashtra is declaring the value of a property then how a need arises to get it valued from the District Valuation Officer." 10. In view of the above, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate bench, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer is barred from in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat allotment letter was issued on 05/04/2010 for allotment of the flat to the assessee, but the agreement was not yet registered and a payment of Rs. 2,38,13,125/- was paid by the assessee. In view of the Assessing Officer, neither the possession letter was issued nor entire consideration was paid and in absence of any registered sale deed, it was not verifiable whether the new asset was transferred to the assessee within a period of three years of its purchase which is one of the condition for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was not authorized to accept the claim of the deduction, if not made in the income tax return otherwise then by filing a revised return. The Learned CIT(A) also held that the assessee has not fulfilled the condition of section 54 of the Act that the assessee has purchased another residential house within one year before or two years after the date on which transfer took place or constructed the same within three years after the date of such transfer. 14. Before us, the Learned Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is not barred from admitting any claim of the assessee, otherwise then made in the....