{"id":27856,"date":"2022-06-26T22:51:06","date_gmt":"2022-06-26T17:21:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/monoj-kumar-biswas-v-pcit-2021-214-ttj-340-63-cch-380-207-dtr-145-kol-trib\/"},"modified":"2022-06-26T22:51:06","modified_gmt":"2022-06-26T17:21:06","slug":"monoj-kumar-biswas-v-pcit-2021-214-ttj-340-63-cch-380-207-dtr-145-kol-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/monoj-kumar-biswas-v-pcit-2021-214-ttj-340-63-cch-380-207-dtr-145-kol-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Monoj Kumar Biswas v. PCIT (2021) 214 TTJ 340 \/ 63 CCH 380 \/ 207 DTR 145 (Kol.)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee purchased the flats for Rs 60\u00a0 lakhs\u00a0 as per the agreement dt. 6<sup>th<\/sup> \u00a0Feb, 2013. The valuation fixed by the stamp authority was Rs. 80,812,150. The Fair market value of the flats was much less than Rs. 67, 57,600 by relying on the estimate of a registered valuer. The Assessing Officer agreed with the estimate of registered valuer. PCIT\u00a0 passed the order\u00a0 directing the Assessing Officer to frame\u00a0 a fresh assessment and call for valuation from the competent authority as mentioned under section 55(2) of the Act in relation to the\u00a0 deed of sale agreement and conveyance. On appeal the Tribunal held that Assessment order was not erroneous\u00a0 for not referring the valuation of flats to the DVO by referring to cl.(b) of section 55(2)(vii) as sub-cl.(ii)) thereof was not in existence in the year 2013 when the transfer of flats took place. (AY. 2015-16)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Valuation  of  flats purchased on the basis of registered valuer-Failure to refer to District valuation Officer-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 55A, 56(2)(vii)(b), 143 (3)]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7fi","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27856","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27856"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27856\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27857,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27856\/revisions\/27857"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}