ACIT v. Tarun Agarwal. (2018) 173 ITD 107 / 175 DTR 299/ 198 TTJ 484 (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation -Stamp valuation was disputed before the AO- It is the duty of AO to refer the matter to Valuation Officer-The department cannot be allowed a second inning, by sending the matter back to Assessing Officer, enabling it to fill the lacunae and shortcomings and putting the assessee virtually to face a re-trial for no fault of him and to again prove before the Assessing Officer that the sale consideration was the fair market value of the property sold by him. [S. 45]

Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that, when the Assessee objected the valuation adopted by the stamp authority, the AO ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer.  The department cannot be allowed a second inning, by sending the matter back to Assessing Officer, enabling it to fill the lacunae and shortcomings and putting the assessee virtually to face a re-trial for no fault of him and to again prove before the Assessing Officer that the sale consideration was the fair market value of the property sold by him. This would amount to giving a lease of life to an order which on the basis of facts on records is unsustainable in law. Therefore, in the light of these facts and the failure of the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure as prescribed under section 50C(2) in particular, there is no find infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in quashing the addition made by the AO. (AY. 2013-14)