TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before us the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in sustaining an order which is bad in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the addition towards Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 72,00,000/- which was bad in law. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the computation of Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 74,61,158/- as against the returned figure of Rs. 26,158/-. The legal as well as the factual position has not been appreciated. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.03.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 10,89,140/-. The return of income filed by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led upon him to explain as to why the circle value/segment rate of Rs. 1 crore may not be adopted in terms of Sec. 50C(1) for working out the LTCG on the sale of the property under consideration. In reply, the assessee in order to impress upon the A.O that the circle value/segment rate of the property under consideration could not be adopted for computing the 'capital gains', therein submitted that the property under consideration suffered from locational disadvantages and also did not have proper frontage. It was the claim of the assessee that the front portion of the property was blocked by two shops which covered 24 feet (out of the total front width of 58 feet). Further, it was submitted by the assessee that the property sold by him was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sale of the said property. In order to fortify the aforesaid claim, the ld. A.R drew our attention to the relevant extract of the 'return of income' that was e-filed by the assessee i.e Page no. 34 of the assesses 'Paper book' (for short 'APB'). On a perusal of the aforesaid extract, it stands revealed that the assessee after disclosing that the circle value/segment rate of the property under consideration was Rs. 1 crore, had however adopted the actual sale consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/- for the purpose of computing the LTCG on the sale of the same. The ld. A.R submitted that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, had on the basis of specific reasons objected to the proposed adoption of the circle value/segment rate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (for short D.R) relied on the order passed by the lower authorities. It was submitted by the learned D.R that the lower authorities had rightly adopted the circle value/segment rate of the aforementioned property for computing the 'capital gain' under Sec. 50C of the I.T Act. It was averred by the learned D.R that as the order passed by the CIT(A) did not suffer from any infirmity, thus the appeal of the assessee being devoid of any merit was liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on the record. Admittedly, the assessee had sold the property under consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose of computing the LTCG on the sale of the property was however bypassed by the A.O, who reworked the LTCG by adopting the circle value/segment rate as the deemed 'sale consideration'. 9. As per the mandate of clause (a) of sub-section (2) to section 50C, in case an assessee claims before the A.O. that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property, then it is obligatory for the A.O to refer the matter to a valuation officer for ascertaining the same. However, in the case before us, we find that the A.O despite a specific objection to the said effect having been raised by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, however dispensed with the said statutory obligation and fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as on the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken by the state authority for the purpose of stamp duty. The very purpose of the Legislature behind the provisions laid down under sub section (2) to section 50C of the Act is that a valuation officer is an expert of the subject for such valuation and is certainly in a better position than the Assessing Officer to determine the valuation. Thus, non-compliance of the provisions laid down under sub section (2) by the Assessing Officer cannot be held valid and justified. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Shashi Kant Garg (supra) has been pleased to hol....