Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (0.44 seconds)
Tata Consumer Products Limited, ... vs Dcit, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata on 17 September, 2024 cites

Sunil Agarwal vs Asstt. Cit on 31 May, 2002

A. The order is invalid as Ld. AO made addition u/s 50C, without mandatorily referring to the DVO as per procedures u/s 50C(2) of the Act, in spite of specific request of the appellant. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant has objected before the Assessing Officer that value adopted by stamp valuation au- thority under section 50C(1) exceeds fair market value of property on date of trans- fer and has requested the AO to make the reference to DVO. However, instead of referring the matter to the DVO, the AO proceeded to make adjustment u/s 50C by holding that reference to DVO is discretionary on the part of the AO. In this regard it is also submitted that as per provision of Section 50C(2), the Assessing officer is required to refer to the DVO, if the assessee has claimed before the AO that SDV exceeds FMV of property on date of transfer and the SDV has not been disputed in any appeal, revision or before any authority or high court. In the in- stant case, the SDV has not been disputed in any appeal, revision or before any authority or high court and further, the appellant had also raised objections during the course of assessment proceedings. Since both the conditions of Section 50C(2) are fulfilled in the given case, the AO was mandatorily required to refer to DVO. Hence the action of the AO of making addition u/s 50C without referring to the DVO is grossly unjustified and without jurisdiction. The very purpose of the Leg- islature behind the provisions laid down under sub-section (2) of section 50C of the Act is that a valuation officer is an expert of the subject for such valuation and is certainly in a better position than the Assessing Officer to determine the valua- tion. Thus, non-compliance with the provisions laid down under sub-section (2) by the Assessing Officer cannot be held valid and justified. Reliance has been placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) where the Hon'ble High court held that where the assessee disputed higher valu- ation made by Stamp valuation authority, the Assessing Officer should have re- ferred matter to Valuation Officer as contemplated under section 50C.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 92 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next