SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 1st August, 2013 by which the appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee has come up in appeal.

(2.) Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant-assessee, has drawn our attention to the following recital appearing from each of the deeds of conveyance:

(3.) Mr. Khaitan submitted that the case of the assessee has always been that the price offered by the purchaser was the highest prevailing price in the market. The valuation made by the District Sub-Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty, therefore, was not the prevailing price of the land in question. He added that the highest prevailing price in the market obviously is also the fair market value of the property. The expression "fair market value" cannot have any other significance than the price, which can fairly be expected to be had upon sale of the property. He, therefore, contended that the case of the assessee always was that the valuation made by the District Sub-Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty was far in excess than the market value of the property. Both the deeds of conveyance were produced before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the valuation was, in fact, challenged. In the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer, in fairness, should have referred the matter to a valuation officer contemplated under Section 50C of the Act, rather than proceeding to assess the capital gain on the basis of the valuation made by the District Sub-Registrar. He added that this submission was specifically made before the learned Tribunal but the learned Tribunal chose to reject the prayer for technical reasons. He submitted that there has been total miscarriage of justice. In case the valuation made by the Assessing Officer is to be accepted, the resultant effect will be that the assessee lost both the property and the money value thereof. He, as such, submitted that the order under challenge should be set aside and the matter should be referred to the valuation officer.