TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovt. valuation of Rs. 22,25,000 and actual sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000 without appreciating that the impugned land located near river bank was vulnerable to floods, it was situated near cremation ground and did not have any approach road and hence, its fair market value was only around Rs. 8,00,000 and therefore, the addition made u/s 50C was not justified on facts and in law. 2] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the claim of the appellant was duly supported by Valuation Report of Govt. Approved Valuer and therefore, the addition u/s 50C confirmed by the CIT(A) without even referring the matter to DVO in spite of specific request made by assessee was against the law laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Suni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt Term Capital Gains". 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order Dated 19-02-2024 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- "6. Decision: The appellant in its grounds of appeal assailed the AO in making addition u/s 50C of the Act being the difference in the stamp duty valuation 22,25,000/- and the actual sale consideration. The appellant further stated that the AO has erred in not referring the impugned land sold for valuation to DVO as there was substantial difference between actual consideration and value for stamp duty purposes per section 50C (2) and that the AO has erred in not considering cost of land sold while calculating short term capital....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0915/-. However, the issue being is that the said price is not that of the DVO but of the Valuer of the appellant and the valuation as per the stamp duty shall remain as it is while calculating the capital gain. Therefore, the valuation submitted by the appellant is not acceptable and hence rejected. However, the appellant shall be entitled to the cost of acquisition and the AO shall be computing the Capital gain after giving the benefit of indexation. The addition is partly deleted. The ground of appeal is partly allowed." 5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before us. 6. The LD AR submitted before us that the assessee is only 8th class pass & is not well conversant with technology & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT, 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta). 7. The LD DR supported the orders passed by subordinate authorities & requested to confirm the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. We have heard LD counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on the record. We find that the assessee is only 8th class pass & therefore could not see the notices sent by AO on emails. The only ground raised before us in this appeal is regarding making the addition on the basis of difference in guide line value of stamp duty for the purposes of registration & actual sales consideration, without appreciating the contention of the appellant as well as without referring the matter to the DVO as envisaged in the section 50C of the IT Act. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prayer is made by the learned advocate representing the assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the assessing officer, discharging a quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is set aside. 10. The impugned order including orders passed by the CIT(A) and the assessing officer are all set aside. The matter is remanded to the assessing officer. He shall refer the matter to the departmental valuation officer in accordance with law. After such valuation is made, the assessment shall be made de novo in accordance with law." 9. We therefore resp....