TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1,02,85,427/- as Long Term Capital Gain. The sale consideration as disclosed by the assessee in respect of aforesaid land was Rs. 1,10,00,000/. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer took the value of land at Rs. 1,39,18,750/- as per Government Valuation for stamp purpose. The assessee took objection to the proposed enhancement, consequently the valuation of property was referred to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO) under the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The DVO vide his report dated 30-12-2013 assessed the value of property at Rs. 1,20,38,000/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,38,000/- i.e. the difference between the value assessed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han 10%. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 38 DTR 19 and in the case of Dattatraya Kerba Lonkar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 1818/PUN/2014 for assessment year 2010-11 decided on 30-01-2017 has held that where the difference between fair market value as determined by the DVO and the actual sale consideration as disclosed by the assessee is less than 10%, no addition is to be made. The ld. AR to further strengthen her submissions placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Bimla Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 308 ITR 71. 4. On the other hand Shri Sudhendu Das representing the Department vehem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7,14,530/-i.e slightly more than 2 per cent of the sale consideration. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction V/s. DCIT (supra) has held that where difference between the sale consideration declared by the assessee and fair market value as determined by the DVO u/s 50C is less than 10 percent, the Assessing Officer was not justified in substituting the value determined for sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. The Co-ordinate Bench after considering the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and the provision of section 23A and 24(5) of the Wealth Tax Act held as under :- "13. A combined reading of the above provisions shows that the valuation adopted by the DVO is subject to appeal and the same is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tels (P) Ltd. V/s 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 per cent , the different is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the A.O cannot be sustained. 16. Since in the instant case such difference is less than 10 per cent and considering the fact that valuation is always a matter of estimation where some degree of difference bound to occur, we are of the considered opinion that the A.O. in the instant case is not justified in substituting the sale consideration at Rs. 20,55,000 as Against the actual sale consideration of Rs. 19,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct ....