R.C. Kannan v. PCIT (2025) 343 CTR 369 / 246 DTR 137 / 170 Taxmann.com 380 (Mad)(HC) Kannan Manomani (Smt) v. ACIT (2025) 343 CTR 369 / 246 DTR 137 / 170 Taxmann.com 380 (Mad)(HC)

S. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Valuation of property-Income from other sources-Stamp valuation-Authorised representative wrongly admitted the addition-No objection was raised before the Assessing Officer prior to the assessment order being passed-Assessee entitled to raise objections before revisional authority or before the CIT(A)-Commissioner’s rejection set aside. [S. 50C(2), 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), 246A, Art. 226]

The assessment was completed on the basis of stamp valuation, The authorised representative has agreed for the addition. No appeal was filed. The assessee filed the revision application which was rejected by the Commissioner. On writ the Court held that  even if objections were not raised before the AO, the assessee could raise them in revision. Under the proviso to S. 56(2)(vii)(c), r/w s. 50C(2), AO must refer valuation to DVO when disputed. Since rejection of revision was unsustainable, order was set aside. The  Assessee entitled to raise objections before revisional authority  or before the CIT(A). Commissioner’s rejection set aside. Commissioner was directed to pass the order on merits  preferably within a period of six months. (AY. 2015-16)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

*