AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i ["DRP"] u/s 144C(5) of the Act for Assessment-Year ["AY"] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual did not file any return of income of AY 2016- 17 under consideration. The AO, on the basis of information available in "RMS-Non filing of Return-PAN Cases" revealing certain financial transactions undertaken by assessee in the previous year 2015-16 relevant to AY 2016-17, completed the process of section 148A(d) and thereafter issued a notice u/s 148 to assessee so as to undertake the proceedings of assessment u/s 147. During assessment proceedings, the AO raised certain queries to which the assessee filed replies. The AO considered as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") amounting to Rs. 10,98,896/-being 50% share of the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the purchase consideration as per the purchase agreement. The said addition being unwarranted on facts and in law, needs to be wholly deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. AO/DRP erred in upholding the aforesaid addition without referring the matter to the Valuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act." Ground No. 1: 5. In this ground, the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 10,98,896/- made by AO u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of property purchased for a consideration less than the Stamps Authority Valuation. 6. Facts apropos to this ground are such that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany" makes the case of assessee not amenable to section 56(2)(vii)(b), does not have any acceptance in the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) and we are afraid that we can accept such a pleading. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the submission made by Ld. AR, the same is rejected and consequently Ground No. 1 is also dismissed. Ground No. 2: 9. In this ground, the assessee claims that the AO/DRP has erred in making/upholding impugned addition without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as per provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. 10. For this ground, Ld. AR for assessee instantly carried us to Page No. 49 of Case-file and demonstrated that the assessee made following submission to Ld. DRP in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eographical area and the actual "fair market value" can differ depending upon several factors. That is why the Govt. has, in its wisdom, prescribed a specific provision in the Proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) [the said Proviso stands included in the objection filed by assessee, re-produced in preceding para] r.w.s. 50C(2), enabling assessee's to get benefit of determination of "fair market value" by DVO and that is why the assessee made a specific request in objection. She re-emphasized that the assessee has purchased impugned property from a reputed listed company "Godrej Properties Ltd." at a "fair market value" and has not paid a single penny over and above the consideration agreed in documents. However, Ld. DRP has not given any head to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee. He submitted that the cases relied by Ld. AR are concerned with a situation in which the assessee raised claim before AO, therefore those cases are not applicable. He also submitted that the assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate lower valuation of property as compared to Stamps Authority Valuation. He submitted that this matter cannot be set aside to AO. 13. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and examined the issue before us. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has made a specific request in the objection filed u/s 144C(2), for making reference to DVO. Such objection strikes at the very foundation of the addition made by the AO as the determination of fair market....