2025 (7) TMI 1368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t value of the said property was Rs. 60,75,000/- and while calculating the capital gain on the sale of the property, the assessee had taken sale consideration at Rs. 42,00,000/- . As per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), since market value of the property as on date Rs. 60,75,000/-, therefore it was considered for working out the capital gain. The assessee had sold the land admeasuring 0.405 hectare located at Mathpuraina, Raipur through registered conveyance deed dated 27.08.2012 against aggregate consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/-. The A.O made addition of Rs. 18,75,000/- solely on account of difference between value adopted for stamp duty purpose and the sale consideration. In other words, the addition was made....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act." 3. The assessee further submitted that circle rate fixed by the Collector is not full proof for determination of the rate for the area concerned but it is just to give guidance to the registering authority to test prima facie whether the deed of conveyance has been properly executed. The assessee further placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Raipur, SMC in the case of Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs. ITO-2, ITA No.03/RPR/2024 and submitted that the A.O is duty bound as per Section 50C(2) r.w.s. 55A of the Act to refer matter to the DVO for determination of fair market value. That since in this case, the said exercise was not done by the A.O which vitiates the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....factors which causes difference between stamp duty value and the fair market value of the property. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice that these provisions have been enumerated in the Act to facilitate the grievance of the assessee in respect of any dispute that may arise with regard to the difference of such value i.e. difference between fair market value which actually is the sale consideration value received by the assessee and the value adopted by the registrar of the assurance i.e. SDV. 7. Therefore, in my considered view the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC made apparent mistake in arriving at the findings as recorded in its order since he himself writes the condition mandatory for making reference to the DVO as per the Act and th....