TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year 2009-2010. 3. First, we take up for adjudication of the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2010-2011. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as under: "1. The ld CIT(A) erred both on facts and law of the case. 2. The ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee did not appear during the assessment proceedings and did not raise any objection against valuation adopted by the AO. 3. The ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee never disputed the valuation before the AO and claimed that due to litigation the market value of the property was lower than the value adopted by Registration Authorities." 5. Facts of the case are that the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO to the assessee to submit her comments and the assessee replied the circumstances under which, she could not present before the AO and also submitted as to why the market rate is lower than the SVO. She also replied that the facts mentioned by the AO by referring other decisions in her remand report is fully distinguishable on facts of the present case. The ld CIT(A) after considering the remand report and the submission of the assessee, deleted the addition made by the AO, inter alia, observing as under: " I have considered the assessment order, submission of the assessee, the remand report and the material placed before me. On examination of the above alongwith the provisions of section 50C, the following position emerges:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not seek reference to Valuation Officer but in the present case, the assessee has objected to the Valuation and submitted documents to claim that because of litigation to the title of property, the market value would be lower. 6. In view of the factual and legal position as above, the addition made by the AO, invoking section 50C is not tenable and the same is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the same is deleted. 7. Ld DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and produced a decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of ITO vs Smt. Chitti Parvatha Vardhanamma I in ITA No.1085/Hyd/2013 for A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 12.3.2014. Whereas ld A.R.supported the order of the ld CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Authority due to the specific reasons, the AO was required to refer the matter to the DVO to ascertain the market value of the property. But the AO did not adopt the said procedure as mandated under section 50C(2) of the Act. The assessee, all along, has objected to the valuation and submitted the required documents to prove that the market value of the property is lesser than the Stamp Valuation Authority. 10. On being asked by the bench, ld DR could not controvert the above position as to why the matter was not referred to the DVO for ascertaining the market value of the property at the relevant time. In the case of Smt. Chitti Parvatha Vardhanamma (supra), the assessee did not ask the AO to referred the matter to the DVO, hence, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the reasons. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee did not file the return of income and also did not attend the AO. Finally, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain as to why the investment of Rs. 75,00,000/- should not be added to the income of the assessee treating the same as unexplained investment. There was no response from the side of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the AO resorted to complete the assessment u/s.144/147 of the Act on 13.3.2015 treating the Rs. 75,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 14. On appeal, the ld CIT (A) after considering the remand report of the AO, granted part relief to the assessee by restricting the addition to Rs. 17,00,00/-. Hence, the ....