News Update

Ten more APA's including 7 Roll-back singedAdmission to a museum exempted - CBEC issues section 11C notification for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2015Exporters who have been accorded AEO exempted from the requirements of drawal of samples for the purpose of grant of drawbackGovt hikes tariff value of gold and silver but reduces same for edible oilsIndia, ADB ink USD 375 mn loans pact for Vizag-Chennai industrial corridorRBI sets up 11-member panel to reassess cyber threatsDeveloping nations in Asia & Pacific required to invest USD 26 trillion in infra sector by 2030: ADBOECD hails India for GST reform; urges for income and property tax reformStuntmen getting 'stunned and stunted' by threat of Service TaxTFA comes into force; to reduce trade costs by 14.3%Commerce Minister calls for strong India-CLMV vertical within ASEANST - As there is no representational right conferred by AAI on petitioners, Operations, Management and Development Agreements cannot constitute franchise: HCI-T - Merely because assessee had approached Settlement commission, it would not render his every act as dubious, says HCCX - Absent issue of SCN against sealed machines & failure to pass order extending period of seizure upon lapse of statutory period of six months, continuation of seizure is illegal: HCGovt to release ethanol policy to reduce crude import bill by Rs one lakh croreTrump likely to sign new immigration order on WednesdaySteel Minister sets up panel for pooling and sharing of resources among PSUsCCEA approves 31 contract areas under Discovered Small Field Policy, 2015Applications invited for Director / DS level posts in CBDTEconomic Survey - A Neo-classic (See 'The Insight' on 'Taxongo')Treading GST Path - XIX - ITC on supporting structuresImport of goods on FOB basis vs CIF basis: Service tax on ocean freightNew Metro Policy - TOD to be incentivisedI-T - Upfront premium on Zero Coupon Non-Convertible Debentures is allowable deduction: ITATCX - Ownership is not the criteria for allowing credit on capital goods: CESTATST - Refund claim of appellant being not in dispute before any higher judicial authority, Sec 11B Clause (B)(ec) will not get attracted - claim time-barred: CESTATPromotion of Digital payments - Prizes worth Rs 150 Crore won by customers and traders so far: PMBanking likely to be disrupted on Tuesday as PSBs' Unions call for strikeOECD Secretary General Angel Gurria to release Economic Survey of India on Tuesday in New DelhiIRS Association writes to PM; calls for Centralised Registration for telecom, banks & insuranceGovt mulling over proposal to cap giveaways by pharma companies to Rs 1000/-Delhi Cabinet approves 36% hike in min wagesDeputation period may be extended but allowance to be capped at five years 
 
I-T - Once AO has failed to make reference to DVO, he cannot go back for computation of capital gains: ITAT

By TIOL News Service

HYDERABAD, FEB 16, 2017: THE ISSUE IS - Whether reference to DVO is mandatory for computing capital gains u/s 50C(2) of I-T Act, and the AO having failed to follow such provisions cannot put the assessee in trouble of facing a virtual trial even after five years of appearing before the AO to prove that the sale price declared by him is reasonable. YES is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The assessee declared income of Rs. 31,90,770/- including LTCG of Rs. 14,23,805/- on sale of property. The AO found that the stamp valuation authority has taken the market value of the property at Rs. 1,35,57,500/- for the purpose of levying of stamp duty. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the case of the assessee attracts provisions of section 50C as per which he has to adopt the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of computation of capital gains. The Assessee objected for adoption of stamp duty valuation and requested that the same may be referred to the DVO as per section 50C .The AO observed that he is bound to adopt the value of the stamp valuation authority u/s 50C for the purpose of computation of capital gains and has no discretion of whatsoever in this matter and hence, the circumstances of sale of property explained by the assessee have no relevance to the adoption of valuation while applying the said section. He, further observed that the assessee's request for reference of the case to the DVO for valuation also cannot be accepted .The AO computed the LTCG in respect of the sale of property at Mumbai at Rs. 62,52,550/- as against Rs. 14,23,800/- returned by the assessee. The CIT(A) held that the AO has not referred the matter to Valuation Officer as mandated u/s 50C and did not consider valid reasons put forward by the assessee for the actual consideration being less than the value adopted for registration purposes. He, therefore, concluded that the addition made by the AO is without following the due process of law and, hence, the same cannot be sustained and accordingly the addition is deleted by the CIT(A).

On Appeal, the ITAT held that,

++ the powers of CIT(A) are subject to section 250 whereby the CIT(A) has no power to set aside any issue, hence, the only option left to the CIT(A) is either to allow the appeal or to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. The AO has not found any material to indicate that the assessee has received any excess money over and above what was declared by her. No material was placed. When deeming provision was to be invoked, the same has to be construed strictly and it has to be taken to its logical conclusion i.e. upon not following the proper procedure prescribed therein, particularly, in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee has prima-facie shown that it was a tenanted property and, therefore, subjected to certain encumbrances and also the fact that in the absence of obtaining a DVO's report, assessee cannot be put to the trouble of facing a virtual trial even after five years of appearing before the AO/DVO at this stage to prove that the sale price declared by her is reasonable. There are catena of decisions on this point and, on other hand, referring to the speech of the Finance Minister as well as circular issued by the CBDT bringing the intention of the legislature whereby it was held that the AO is duty bound to refer the matter to the Valuation officer when the reasons were thoroughly mentioned by the assessee for the FMV that the assessee could fetch in these circumstances. Despite making request to refer the matter to the DVO, the AO purposely did not refer the matter to the DVO on the ground that he is duty bound to go by the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority. The Courts time and gain held that reference u/s 50C(2) is mandatory and the AO having failed to follow the provisions, he should not be given one more chance to refer the matter to the DVO. When the AO has not followed the procedure prescribed in law, the addition made deserved to be deleted. The order of the CIT(A) upheld.

(See 2017-TIOL-127-ITAT-HYD)


POST YOUR COMMENTS