TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hearing of the appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual filed return of income on 14.11.2014 declaring total income Rs. 2,17,220/- along with agricultural income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and on issuance of statutory notices by the AO, the assessee appeared and filed related documents. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee requested for referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer, however, the AO rejected the referral u/s. 50C of the Act. Further the AO made various additions. 3. Against the said order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR of the assessee filed his written submission which read as under :- 1.1 In this case, the assessee has filed his ROI for AY 14-15 on/14-11-14 by declaring income Rs. 2,17,220; case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS & notice u/s 143(2) has been issued; assessment has been made u/s 143(3) on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. It is requested to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the FMV of the alleged land on the date of transfer on 1-3-14 before applying the deeming sec 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii); reliance is placed on: Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) dt. 5-10-18 Prem Chand Jain (2020) (Jai-Trib) dt. 8-6-20 Narendra Kumar Lunia (2019) (Raipur-Trib) dt.22-9-16 Aavishkar Film (P) Ltd (2019) (Mum-Trib) dt. 21-6-19 Kishore Kumar (2018) (Visak-Trib) dt. 11 -7-18 Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal HC) dt. 13-3-14 1.8. It is submitted that Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) dt. 5-1018, held as under: "3. ...There is no dispute about the assessee having purchased 4 immovable properties involving less than stamp value(es) rate(s) to the tune of Rs. 6,60,962. He raised various legal arguments before the CIT(A) which rejected. I find that sec 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable in case of an Indl or an HUF receiving any immovable property having stamp value exceeding Rs. 50,000 without consideration or such a consideration to be less than stamp price of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000. Ld counsel vehemently c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Film (P) Ltd (2019) (Mum-Trib) dt. 21-6-19 Kishore Kumar (2018) (Visak-Trib) dt.l 1-7-18 Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal HC) dt. 13-3-14 1.8. It is submitted that Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) dt. 5-1018, held as under: "3. ...There is no dispute about the assessee having purchased 4 immovable properties involving less than stamp value(es) rate(s) to the tune of Rs. 6,60,962. He raised various legal arguments before the CIT(A) which rejected. I find that sec 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable in case of an Indl or an HUF receiving any immovable property having stamp value exceeding Rs. 50,000 without consideration or such a consideration to be less than stamp price of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000. Ld counsel vehemently contended that both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on facts in invoking the impugned statutory provision. I find no merit in this argument since the legislature has made it clear in last proviso to sec 56(2)(vii) that this clause does not apply to any sum of money or any property received from any relative or donor as per clauses (a) to (g) therein. This is not the assessee's c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. The above provisions thus provide that where an individual receives in any PY, from any person or persons on or after the 110-09 but before the 1-4-17, any immoveable property for a consideration which is less than the SD value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs. 50,000, the SD value of such property as exceeds such consideration shall be income chargeable to tax under the head "IFOS". 18. In the instant case, the assessee has purchased 2 plots of land during the year u/c. The sale consideration as per the respective sale deeds amounts to Rs. 5,50,000 and the SD value of such properties as determined by the SD authority amounts to Rs. 8,53,636 and therefore, there is difference to the tune of Rs. 3,03,636 between the sale consideration as per the sale deeds and the stamp valuation determined by the SVA. To this extent, the facts are not disputed and have been accepted by both the parties. 21. ...In this regard, the contention of the Id AR is that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has objected to the DLC value adopted by the AO and therefore, before applying the DLC value, the matter should have been referred to the DVO for determi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "6. We find that here is a case in which the assessee has specifically objected to the adoption of SDV rate. The mere fact that the appellant has not challenged the SDV cannot be put against the assessee. The authority for the this proposition is contained in, Hon'ble jurisdictional HC's judgment, in Chandra Narain Chaudhuri (2013) (All HC), wherein Their Lordships have observed that: "The que as to whether the assessee filed any objections before the SVA to dispute the valuation, or filed appeal or revision or made reference before any authority, court or the HC u/s 50C(2)(b) is not of any relevance in this case, as the AO himself observed that the assessee did not dispute the stamp valuation before the SVA. There may be several reasons for the purchaser not to file such objection. A purchaser may not go into litigation, and pay SD, as fixed by the SVA, which may be over and above the FMV 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 assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O with the direction to refer the valuation of property to the DVO u/s 50C(2). This is precisely what the learned Counsel for the assessee before us has prayed for." [as extracted from Narendra Kumar Lunia (2019) 33 NYPTTJ 945 (Raipur-Trib) ITA No. 202/RPR/2014, AY 10-11] 1.11. It is submitted that Aavishkar Film (P) Ltd (2019) (Mum-Trib) dt. 21-6-19, held as under: "7. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the primary fact that as against declared sale consideration of Rs. 1.75 crore shown by the assessee the AO has adopted the value determined by the SVA at Rs. 2,51,45,500, as deemed sale consideration u/s 50C(l).... In the facts of the present appeal, undisputedly, in the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has objected to adoption of SD value as the deemed sale consideration for whatever may be the reason. That being the case, it was the duty of the AO to make a reference to the DVO for determining the value of the property sold. The contention of the Deptt that the reference to DVO was not made because the assessee raised the objection before the AO purposefully at the fag end to see to it that the proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g land or building or both, if it is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Govt, for the purpose of SD in respect of such transfer the value so adopted or assessed shall for the purpose of sec 48 be deemed to be the 4FVC' received or accruing as a result of transfer. In case of dispute, the assessee is free to approach the SVA. In case the assessee did not dispute in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any HC, and objects before the AO for adopting the SRO value for capital gains as per sec 50C, the AO may refer the valuation of the capital asset to VO and the value determined by the valuation authority shall be taken as full value for the purpose of capital gains. In the instant case, the assessee has not disputed the valuation made by the SVA for the purpose of stamp duties but objected for adoption of the same for capital gains. The assessee explained that SRO value was not disputed because of payment of SD by the buyer. The assessee also did not request the AO for making reference to the DVO for valuing the property. However, the assessee brought on record regarding the non exclusion of te....