TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of Rs. 26,90,000/- on account of long term capital gain as made by the Assessing Officer and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 3. That, in any view of the matter the assessing officer was wrong in invoking provision of section 50C as per stamp value when the value of land sold was very negligible and it was not correct on the part of stamp authority /valuation authority to fix two rates for same piece of land on same date hence The value as adopted by two lower authorities are totally incorrect baseless and uncalled for. 4. That in any view of the matter the assessing officer has not considered the valuation report submitted by the assessee nor referred the matter to valuation officer (D.V.O.) as per sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further submitted that there was a dispute over the said land between the assessee and Devendra Nath Mishra which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court as well as before District Judge, Ballia. The Assessing Officer did not accept the reply of the assessee and made the addition under section 50C of the Income Tax Act to the short term capital gain by adopting full value consideration at Rs. 28,05,000/-. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee purchased the land at mauja Newari Ballia measuring 0.210 hectare (52 decimal) or about 17 Kattha for a consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/- on 27.02.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....njustified when the objection of the assessee was not taken into consideration and the fair market value of the property in question was not determined by the DVO. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions:- i. Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Agra ii. Vijay Kumar Patni vs. Income Tax Officer 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that as the assessee has not made any request before the Assessing Officer for referring the valuation to the DVO. The assessee has not disputed the Stamp Duty Valuation determined by the authority in the registration of the sale deed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting the Stamp Duty Valuation as full value consideration as per section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonable and abnormally high. It is a matter of fact that the Stamp Duty authority has valued the property in question at Rs. 16,88,000/- on 27th February, 2015 and then within a period of one month, 10% of the said land was valued by the Stamp Duty authority at Rs. 28,05,000/- which shows that there is a steep hike in the valuation for the purpose of Stamp Duty and that too within a period of one month. Thus, such an enhancement / increase in the Stamp Duty Valuation is possible only when some abnormal or inordinary event happened. All these facts explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer which lead to the fair inference that the assessee has seriously objected to the adoption of Stamp Duty Valuation as full value consideration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....haser may not go into litigation, and pay stamp duty, as fixed by the Stamp Valuation Authority, which may be over and above the fair market value of the property, as on the date of transfer, though the amount so determined has not been actually received by owner of the property". The position as to whether reference should be made to the DVO, even when there is no specific plea to that effect by the assessee, is now well set out in Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal CIT (GA No 3686/2013 in ITAT No 221/ 2013; judgment dated 13th March 2014), wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows:- " ....we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplate....