TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), dated 28.12.2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts. 2. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not reversing the action of the Ld. A.O. in treating the difference between Market price and price as per sale deed as income from STCG without considering the corroborative evidence of Rs. 25,03,000. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the order under appeal is bad in law and is ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment to the best of his judgment. Also, the notice(s) issued by the AO under section 142(1) of the Act were not responded to by the assessee. 4. The AO, in the course of the assessment proceedings, observed that the assessee had, during the subject year, sold a vacant plot admeasuring 936 Sq. Yards for a consideration of Rs. 65,52,000/- (along with other co-owners). The AO observed that the aforesaid sale transaction was registered vide document No.1883/2009, at SRO, Dwarakanagar, and the assessee had received his 1/4th share of sale consideration of Rs. 16,38,000/- (i.e. 1/4th of Rs. 65,52,000/-) vide Cheque No. 80257 drawn at HDFC, Dwarakanagar Branch. 5. The AO, on a perusal of the registered sale deed, observed that the Regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mp duty. The Ld.AR to buttress his aforesaid contention, had drawn my attention to the copy of the "purchase deed" of the subject property dated 10.01.2007, which revealed that the subject property that was purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/-, was at that time also for purpose of payment of the stamp duty adopted by the registering authority at a high pitch amount of Rs. 74,88,000/-. 9. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO had grossly erred in summarily adopting the value taken by the Stamp valuation authority as the "deemed sale consideration" under section 50C of the Act and determined the STCG in the hands of the assessee at Rs. 25,03,000/- (1/4th share). 10. Per contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the Stamp Valuation Authority as the "deemed sale consideration" for determining the STCG on the transfer of the subject property. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact that the assessee had neither participated in the assessment proceedings nor objected to the adoption by the AO of the value taken by the Stamp Valuation authority as the "deemed sale consideration" for determining the STCG on transfer of the subject property. However, I am of the view that the AO in all fairness and in the interest of justice ought to have referred the matter to the "Valuation Cell" for determining the "Fair Market Value" (FMV) of the said property, instead of summarily substituting the actual sale consideration by the value so adopted by the stamp valua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed anything more than the agreed consideration of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs which, according to the assessee, was the highest prevailing market price. It would follow automatically that his case was that the fair market value of the property could not be Rs. 35 lakhs as assessed by the District Sub Registrar. In a case of this nature the assessing officer should, in fairness, have given an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the departmental valuation officer contemplated under Section 50C. As a matter of course, in all such cases the assessing officer should give an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the departmental valuation officer. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act, the AO, being a quasi-judicial authority, before substituting the sale consideration by the value adopted by the Registering Authority, as the "deemed sale consideration" for computing the "capital gain" on transfer of the same, ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Cell. In fact, I find that the claim of the assessee that the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the subject property transferred during the year was lower than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation authority for payment of stamp duty, for the reason that the same was disadvantageously located, is, prima facie, fortified by the fact that even at the stage of purchase of the said property vide a registered purchase de....