Benedicta Mary Mendonce vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(3) (ITAT)

Bangalore ITAT accepts assessee’s plea for adoption of value as determined by the DVO as ‘full value of consideration’ received for purpose of computing long term capital gains on transfer of property; Rejects CIT(A)’s view that the conditions for making a valid reference u/s.50C(2) did not exist as the purchaser of the property had disputed the valuation adopted by the registering authorities for the purpose of levy of stamp duty; Observes that “the fact that the purchaser of the property filed a letter before the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, would not be sufficient to conclude that the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty by the registering authorities had been disputed in an appeal revision before an authority as contemplated under Sec.50C(2)(b)”; Besides, notes that the AO made reference to the DVO before the date of the aforesaid letter filed by the purchaser and infers that “Thus as on the date on which the AO referred the question of valuation of the property to the DVO, there was no bar in terms of Sec.50C(2)(b)”; Accordingly, opines that “the valuation report given by the DVO cannot be ignored” and directs that the value as determined by the DVO be adopted for the purpose of determining the full value of consideration received on transfer of capital asset for computing LTCG as laid down in Sec.50C(3).