TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. The Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in declining to make a reference to the DVO. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ignored the third proviso to sec.56(2)(x) and fell in error of law in holding that there is no provision for reference to the DVO in the scheme of sec.56(2)(x). 3. The Ld. CIT (A) fell in error of law in not appreciating that the CIT(A) has power to make reference to the DVO for valuation, u/s. 250 of the Act." 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the addition made under section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material on record.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was 12 to 14 years old, and it was not a newly constructed building. The assessee also submitted that the market value of the flat purchased by him is a maximum of Rs. 24 lakh only, as the building is 12 to 14 years old and not well-maintained. Furthermore, the families staying there are poor to average class, who cannot maintain the building in good condition. 5. The Assessing Officer ("AO"), vide order dated 16/04/2021 passed under section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 9,22,919, being the difference between the purchase consideration of Rs. 24 lakh and the market value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority of Rs. 33,22,990, unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by families of poor to average means and cannot maintain it in good condition. In support of its contention that the assessee purchased the property at the higher rate, it is evident from the record that the assessee furnished the valuation report before the learned CIT(A). However, the same was rejected by the learned CIT(A) as a self procured document. 8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, which reads as follows: - "(b) any immovable property,- (A) without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property; (B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property from any person or persons on or after 01.04.2017 either without consideration or for consideration, the stamp duty value of such property exceeding such consideration shall be considered as its income from other sources, if the amount of such excess is more than the amount mentioned in the section. The third proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) provides that where the stamp duty of the immovable property is disputed by the assessee on the grounds as mentioned in section 50C(2) of the Act, the AO may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer. In this regard, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, which reads as follows: - "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty." 10. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the value of the residential flat purchased by the assessee on the date of transfer, and the value so adopted is also not in dispute in any appeal, revision or reference before any Authority, Court or High Court. Thus, both the conditions of section 50C(2) of the Act are fulfilled in the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the AO erred in not referring the valuation of the residential flat to the DVO. Further, the impugned order also suffers from the same vice, as despite recording s....