Case Law Details
Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
There is no dispute from the above narrated facts and circumstances that both the lower authorities have gone by the reduced jantri price for the purpose of invoking Section 50C of the Act so as to make the impugned long term capital gains addition. The CIT(A) particularly is of the opinion that the above reduced jantri price in Stamp Act Appellate proceedings coming to Rs. 95,73,102/- is just and proper. We however see no reason to concur with the above extracted findings as the impugned addition u/s.50C(2) of the Act mandates reference to the DVO in case an assessee contests the jantri price in question to be higher than fair market value of the relevant capital asset. Honorable Calcutta high court’s judgment in (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT holds that such a reference is mandatory even if an assessee does not make any such prayer. We therefore accept assessee’s sole substantive grievance for statistical purposes and remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh as per law u/s.50C(2) of the Act by making reference to the DVO.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Vadodara’s order dated 21.08.2015 in case no. CAB-1/176/2014-15, upholding Assessing Officer’s action making long term capital gains addition of Rs. 62,21,877/- after invoking Section 50C, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
