Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791

B.P.Mundra

मानवता से काम करें मन के सारे काम अपने आप हो जायेंगे

इस महीने के इम्पोर्टेंट काम
  • Home
  • GST
  • Cases Income tax
  • MCA
  • Subsidy
  • TDS
  • About Us
  • contact us
  • Login
    • Admin Login
    • Staff Login
    • User Login
  • Loan
  • Apply for job
  • Click Here
  • HOW TO
  • To file ITR for AY 2022-23 kindly give details (and also evidence if yes) of following
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Authority
    • Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
    • client
    • Constitution of India
    • Finance Act 1994
    • formalities to be completed
    • GST
    • Happiness
    • HOW TO
    • Income Tax
    • Indian Evidence Act 1872
    • Job Application
    • MCA
    • Office system
    • Papers required for filing
    • Principal of mutuality
    • rajasthan public trust
    • Smile
    • Subsidy
    • work report

B.P.MUNDRA

Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791


अगर SVA की वैल्यूएशन DVO के वैल्यूएशन से ज्यादा आती है तो कर अधिकारी धारा 50C के प्रावधान के अनुसार कौन सी वैल्यू लेगा?ITAT Mumbai ने 18.11.2016 को Sangeeta Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs Acit 25(2) को इसका ऑर्डर पास किया है।

B.P.Mundra > Income Tax > Cases Income tax > 50C > अगर SVA की वैल्यूएशन DVO के वैल्यूएशन से ज्यादा आती है तो कर अधिकारी धारा 50C के प्रावधान के अनुसार कौन सी वैल्यू लेगा?ITAT Mumbai ने 18.11.2016 को Sangeeta Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs Acit 25(2) को इसका ऑर्डर पास किया है।

admin December 18, 2020 0 Comments

50C, 50C(2), 50C(3), AY 2010-11, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT Mumbai

Loading

अगर SVA की वैल्यूएशन DVO के वैल्यूएशन से ज्यादा आती है तो कर अधिकारी धारा 50C के प्रावधान के अनुसार कौन सी वैल्यू लेगा? ITAT Mumbai ने 18.11.2016 को Sangeeta Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs Acit 25(2) को इसका ऑर्डर पास किया है।
स्पष्टीकरण: करदाता ने कोई जमीन जायदाद एक करोड़ में बेची स्टांप वैल्यूएशन अधिकारी ने उसकी कीमत 2 करोड़ मानी। करदाता ने वैल्यूएशन रिपोर्ट एक करोड़ की वैल्यू बताते हुए कर अधिकारी को सबमिट की और धारा 50C(3) में DVO से valuation कराने की रिक्वेस्ट की। DVO ने उसकी वैल्यू 3 करोड़ मानी। तो प्रश्न यह उठता है कि आयकर अधिकारी धारा 50C प्रावधान की पालना में DVO की वैल्यू लेगा या SVA ? ITAT Mumbai ने 18.11.2016 को इसका ऑर्डर पास किया है उसको जानने के लिए क्लिक करें नीचे लिंक को
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai
in case the value determined by DVO is less than the stamp duty valuation by SVA, the A.O. under sub-section (3) is empowered to adopt the value determined by DVO. On the contrary, if value determined by DVO is more than the stamp duty valuation by SVA, the A.O. has to adopt the value determined by the SVA. Assessee certainly cannot be put to a worse position for objecting to the value determined by the SVA.
Sangeeta Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs Acit 25(2), Mumbai on 18 November, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI M. K. AGARWAL, AM
I.T.A. No. 338/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11)
Smt. Sangeeta Vijay Kumar v. ACIT-25(2),
Plot No.87th, Bunglow No.2, Mumbai
Krishna Nagar, 5 Road,
Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066
PAN/GIR No. ACEPV 2427 L
Appellant) : Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri K. R. Lakshminarayana Respondent by : Shri J. P. Jangid
Date of Hearing 03.11.2016
Date of Pronouncement 18.11.2016
O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, J. M.:
This is an Appeal by the Assessee against the Order dated 12.11.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-35, Mumbai for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11.
2. In the memorandum of appeal, the assessee has raised four grounds. Ground no. 4 being general in nature does not require any specific adjudication. Ground nos. 1 and 2 are not pressed by the assessee, hence these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the only ground which survives for consideration is ground no. 3, which reads as under:
‘3. CIT(A) further erred in making the enhancement of income by Rs.10,04,072/- by accepting valuation made by DVO without considering the provisions of Sec 50C(3).
3. As could be seen, the issue arising for consideration as per ground no. 3 is, in a case where the valuation determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) is more than the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority (SVA), in terms of section 50C(3), which value is to be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gain.
4. Briefly stated, during the relevant previous year, i.e., on 08.4.2009, the assessee sold a flat for a declared sale consideration of Rs.36 lacs. After reducing the cost of acquisition of Rs.30,92,000/-, he offered an amount of Rs.5,08,000/- as short term capital gain (STCG). In the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticing that the valuation of the property for stamp duty purpose has been determined by SVA at Rs.47,77,928/-, called upon the assessee to explain why the value determined by the SVA should not be adopted as the deemed sale consideration of the property for the purpose of capital gain. Objecting to the adoption of SVA valuation., assessee requested to refer the valuation to the DVO. Though, the A.O. made a reference to the DVO to determine the value of the property, however, as the assessment was getting time barred, without waiting for the DVO’s report, the A.O. proceeded to complete the assessment by computing capital gain adopting the value determined by the SVA in terms of section 50C(1) of the Act. This resulted in determination of STCG at Rs.16,85,928/-. Being aggrieved of the addition so made by the A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
5. The ld. CIT(A) noticing that in the meanwhile DVO has submitted his report, determining the value of the property at Rs.57,82,000/-, directed the A.O. to recompute the STCG by adopting the value of the property as determined by DVO at Rs.57,82,000/-, as against the valuation of the SVA at Rs.47,77,928/-.
6. The ld. AR objecting to the aforesaid direction of the ld. CIT(A) submitted, as per the provision of section 50C(3), in a case where the value determined by the DVO is more than the value assessed by SVA, the valuation made by the SVA has to be adopted. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted, since the assessee in terms of section 50C(2) has requested for referring the valuation to the DVO, the value determined by the DVO has to be adopted as per section 50C(3) of the Act.
7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record with reference to the provisions contained u/s. 50C of the Act. On a careful reading of section 50C, it is noticed that as per sub-section (1), in a case where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the SVA for stamp duty purpose at the time of transfer of an immovable property is more than the value/sale consideration declared by the assessee, the value assessed or adopted by the stamp valuation authority shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer.
However, sub-section (2) provides an exception by affording an opportunity to the assessee to object to the value of the SVA. In case such an objection is made by the assessee, then as per the mandate of sub-section (2), the A.O. has to refer the valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer. Once the DVO submits valuation report determining the value of the property, then the A.O. has to proceed in terms of sub section (3) of section 50C. For convenience sub-section (3) is extracted here-under:
‘Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases.
50C (1) …………………
(2) ………………
(3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.’
8. On a careful analysis of the provision contained under sub-section (3), it is to be noted that where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the SVA as referred to in sub-section (1), the ITA No. 338/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010 -11) Smt. Sangeeta Vijay Kumar vs. ACIT value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as a full value or consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. If we give a schematic interpretation to the provisions of sec. 50C, it emerges that the value as referred to under sub-section (2) is valuation by the DVO. Whereas, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the SVA as referred to in sub section (1) would mean the valuation made by the SVA. Therefore, if the valuation of the DVO exceeds the valuation of the SVA, in such a situation the value adopted by SVA has to be taken as the value of consideration received or accruing. The expression ‘value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority’ as appears in concluding part of sub section (3), if read in conjunction with sub-section (1) of section 50C would leave no room for doubt that the said expression, and, more particularly the expression ‘such authority’ referred to therein would mean the SVA. Therefore, as per the plain reading of sub-section (3) of section 50C, in a case where the value determined by the DVO is more than the value assessed by the SVA, the value adopted by the SVA shall be deemed to be the full value or consideration received by the assessee.
9. Reading of the provision of sec.50C as whole would demonstrate, as per sub- section (1), normally, the value assessed or assessable by the SVA for stamp duty purpose if exceeds the recorded sale consideration, the value determined for stamp duty purpose shall be deemed to be the sale consideration received by the assessee for computing capital gain. The exception provided under sub-section (2) comes into play, only if, assessee objects to the valuation of SVA during the assessment proceeding. Thus, it is very much clear that the reference to DVO is for the benefit of the assessee. Therefore, in case the value determined by DVO is less than the stamp duty valuation by SVA, the A.O. under sub-section (3) is empowered to adopt the value determined by DVO. On the contrary, if value determined by DVO is more than the stamp duty valuation by SVA, the A.O. has to adopt the value determined by the SVA. Assessee certainly cannot be put to a worse position for objecting to the value determined by the SVA. In our considered view, this is the correct interpretation of the statutory provision and also brings out the true legislative intent in enacting the provision of section 50C. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, we hold that as the valuation made by the SVA at Rs.47,77,928/- is less than the value determined by the DVO at Rs.57,82,000/-, the A.O. is directed to recompute STCG by adopting the value of Rs.47,77,928/- as assessed by the SVA, in terms of section 50C(3) of the Act. Ground raised is, accordingly, allowed.
10. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on November 18th , 2016 Sd/- Sd/-
(M. K. Agarwal) (Saktijit Dey)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Mumbai; Dated : 18 .11.2016
Roshani, Sr. PS

Total Page Visits: 3994 - Today Page Visits: 4

← Previous post

Next post →

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Categories

  • 1860 (1)
  • 1956 (1)
  • 1973 (1)
  • 2002 (1)
  • 2013 (1)
  • Articles (78)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (59)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure (0)
  • Companies Act (2)
  • Constitution of India (2)
  • Cr.P.C. (2)
  • Due dates (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (6)
  • GST (59)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (47)
  • HUF Property (1)
  • Income Tax (310)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • Indian Penal Code (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (3)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (9)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • PMLA Act (1)
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act (1)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • February 2025
    • January 2025
    • July 2024
    • October 2023
    • September 2023
    • July 2023
    • April 2023
    • March 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019

    Recent Posts

    • GST registration: को-ओनर जिसके नाम से बिजली का बिल है को GST Registration के लिए दूसरे ऑनर से एनओसी लेने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। FCA BPMUNDRA
    • FCA BPMUNDRA 9314501680 [email protected] क्या आयकर नोटिस 148 को इशू का नोटिस धारा 149 के अनुसार उस समय माना जाएगा जब वह नोटिस धारा 282 रूल 127 के प्रावधान के अंतर्गत प्रिसक्राइब्ड मोड ऑफ सर्विस पुरी की जाए। दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने 21 फरवरी 2025 मारुति सुजुकी की अपील को स्वीकार करते हुए धारा 148 में इशू नोटिस को इस आधार पर रद्द कर दिया कि नोटिस भले ही 31 मार्च 2016 को डिजिटल साइन हो गया लेकिन इश्यू 1 अप्रैल 2016 time barred होने के बाद को हुआ। Section 148, Section 282, Section 127, Section 149, time barred, notice, Delhi High Court, Quash, Quashed, Annulled
    • टीडीएस अमाउंट ज्यादा भर दिया है तो उसका रिफंड क्लेम करने के लिए जो सीबीडीटी ने 2 साल का लिमिटेशन पीरियड सर्कुलर से तय किया है के आधार पर आईटीओ रिफंड देने का मना नहीं कर सकता। यह सर्कुलर अल्ट्रा वायर्स दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने 31 जनवरी 2025 के फैसले में घोषित किया है। FCA BPMUNDRA
    • Rectify the filed GSTR-1 return in order to get ITC benefit
    • Whether claim of exemption under section 54F is allowable for capital gain on sale of shares which was sold in lieu of plot and construction and thereafter assessee made further payment towards remaining construction. The permission of transfer of property was not obtained in the time period as available in section 54F. ITAT KOLKATA allowed the deduction u/s 54F in the case of Basabdutta Dutta v. ITO vide IT APPEAL NO. 868 (KOL.) OF 2023 [AY 2014-15] on dated 11.07.2024. FCA BPMUNDRA 9314501680