Case Law Details
Ms. Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Conclusion:
Since a bare reading of scheme of Section 50C would show that assessee could object to presumptive value as per Section 50C (1) and, therefore, it was only after hearing the objections of assessee, the fair market value of capital asset as per ‘Guidance Value’ could be determined by authorities, therefore, the matter was remitted back to Assessing Authority to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumptive value under Section 50C and then compute ‘Fair Market Value’ under Section 48.
Assessee can object to presumptive value as per Section 50C (1) and, therefore, it is only after hearing the objections of assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as per ‘Guidance Value’ can be determined by the authorities. Assessee cannot be denied an opportunity to raise his objections even against the presumptive Fair Market Value under Section 50C (1) of the Act or Report of DVO under Section 50C (2) and AO or Appellate Authorities, whose powers are co-extensive with those of AO, can not refuse to meet those objections point by point.
Held:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
