Veena Ojha Vs DC/ACIT (ITAT Varanasi)
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi dated 25.07.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee challenged the dismissal of the appeal, contending that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by failing to refer the valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) despite the assessee disputing the stamp duty valuation and furnishing an approved valuer’s report.
The assessee had filed the return of income on 28.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 23,75,460. The case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer-Assisted Scrutiny System (CASS). During the proceedings, the assessee, Smt. Veena Ojha, expired on 26.09.2019 and her legal heir, Sri Sudhakar Ojha, was substituted. The AO invoked Section 50C of the Act and computed capital gains by adopting the circle rate notified by the Stamp Valuation Authority, resulting in an addition of Rs. 43,94,000. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed without examining the merits, following which the assessee appealed before the Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, the authorised representative submitted that both the AO and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts correctly and did not refer the valuation dispute to the DVO. It was argued that the assessee had objected to the adoption of the stamp duty value and had produced an approved valuer’s report. According to the assessee, once such an objection is raised under Section 50C, the matter is required to be referred to the DVO for determining the correct fair market value of the property. It was also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the valuation report produced during the appellate proceedings.
