TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 4,888/-is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. (2). The learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect applied the section 50C of the I T Act for under valuation of the property and made the addition of Rs. 32,62,100/- is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. (3). The learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of passing the order totally on surmises and conjecture basis and mentioned the facts in body of order which is very far away from the truth and against the facts of the case and against the rule of natural justice is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. (4). The learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234A/B/C is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. (5). The learned commissioner of Income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre, Delhi h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same. Thus, the assessing officer concluded that the claim of the assessee is not acceptable and completed assessment proceedings making addition of Rs. 32,62,100/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, in the second round, following the same facts. The ld.CIT(A) noticed that assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 32,66,100/- made on account of Section 50C of the Act, stating that the assessing officer has recorded wrong facts in the body of the Order. The assessing officer invoked the provisions of Section 50C of the Act to make the addition on account of difference in sale value disclosed and value as per stamp duty valuation authority. The assessing officer has only followed the statute in doing so. While setting aside the case of the assessee to the assessing officer for examination of the impugned transaction, the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench vide Order in ITA No. 552/RJT/2012 dated 14.07.2016 in the assessee's own case for the AY 2006-07 held that - "7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the norms of Govt, of Gujarat, Considering the facts of the case it is found that there is a concealment of Rs. 32,62,100/- on account of under valuation of the property. It is pertinent to note that assessee failed to comply to fumish necessary details with respect to show cause notice dated 12.12.2011 issued by ld. Assessing Officer. From going through the above para it is crystal clear that Assessing Officer issued show cause notice relating to sale of property of which consideration shown in the sale deed stood at Rs. 3,80,000/- whereas as per the Stamp Duty Valuation Officer stamp duty was calculated by adopting the valuation of property at Rs/ 36,42,100/- on the other hand during the appellate proceedings before Id. CIT(A) assessee has submitted that the impugned transaction did not relate to sale of land or building but it was merely a transfer of right in property on which provisions of section 50C were not applicable as there was no transfer of land or building. 10. In the given circumstances wherein facts on which impugned addition was made by Id. Assessing Officer are different from the facts put forth by assessee before Id CIT(A), as Id. Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that she had not received clear cut possession of the land. No specific details regarding her claim of the matter being under litigation before Courts in Calcutta and Rajkot and the status of the same was produced despite opportunities accorded. During appellate proceedings, in Second round, vide submission dated 14.04.2018 the assessee stated that- "The Assessing Officer has grossly failed to appreciate the fact that the market rales for the purpose of registration of an immovable property as noticed by the Sub Registrar can also have no application for determining the market value. It is limited only for payment of the stamp duty. As such the value notified for the purpose of registration cannot be a proper guide for valuation in respect of pre-emptive purchase Further the Assessing Officer has totally failed to discharge the onus of making the addition by bringing some cogent evidence on record. Reliance on stamp duty valuation was a mere suspicion, which was not sufficient. It is reiterated that the guideline values are fixed by the registering authorities for purposes of collection of stamp duty and that guideline values of land for the purposes of registration of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itle of sale, both are defective, therefore, sales deed is also defective, hence, provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will not be applicable to the assessee, and therefore addition made by the assessing officer may deleted. 10. Without prejudice to the above, Shri D.M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, again vehemently argued that either this Tribunal should allow the appeal of the assessee or remit the case back to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to the assessing officer, to get the report of valuation from the DVO and based on the report of the DVO, the assessing officer may adjudicate the issue, as per the provisions of the Act. 11. Learned DR, on behalf of the revenue, submitted that considering the facts of the assessee`s case, the appeal of the assessee should not be allowed. However, Ld. DR did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer, with the direction to the assessing officer, to adjudicate the matter based on the report of the DVO. 12. The Ld. DR for the revenue also submitted the written submission, before the Bench, which is reproduced below: "2. We pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. 8. Judicial precedents have upheld the mandatory nature of Section 50C. Unless the assessee invokes the provisions of subsection (2) by challenging the stamp duty valuation and requesting a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority must be accepted without alteration. 9. In conclusion, the Revenue submits that: I. Section 50C is mandatory in requiring the adoption of the stamp duty valuation as the full value of consideration when it exceeds the declared II. There is no legal alternative or discretion allowed under the Act to consider a lower sale consideration due to title disputes or similar issues. III. Claims regarding title disputes are irrelevant for the application of Section 50C, as the legislature has not provided any exceptions for such circumstances. IV. The ITAT must adhere to legislative intent, as both Section 50C and the provisions establishing the ITAT are enacted by the same legislative authority. Therefore, it is beyond the ITAT's power to render a judgment that does not conform to the clear intention of the legislature. 10. Theref....