Mohammedaarif Yunusbhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition invoking provisions of section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act without referring the valuation of the capital asset to the valuation officer is not justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO to refer the matter to valuation officer for determining Fair Market Value.
Facts- An information was received by AO that the assessee had sold immovable property, in which he was one third co-owner, for a consideration of Rs.91,00,000/-. Thus, the case was reopened by the AO by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the course of assessment, no compliance was made by the assessee. AO had treated one third sale consideration of the immovable property of Rs.30,33,333/- as Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. Further the stamp duty value adopted for this property was found to be Rs.1,82,04,081/- as against sale deed amount of Rs.91,00,000/- only. Therefore, the one third amount of difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, amounting to Rs.30,34,694/-, was considered as income of the assessee u/s. 50C of the Act.
In the course of assessment, AO also made enquiry from the Bank and in the absence of any explanation about the cash deposits, the entire cash receipt of Rs.57,85,000/- was treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act.
