Section 50C(2)

Section 50C(2) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 50C(2), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Sunil Kumar Agarwal v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The AO adopted the stamp duty value and I never asked for a DVO reference. Can he do that?
  No. Where the stamp duty valuation exceeds the stated consideration, the Assessing Officer must refer the valuation to the DVO under s.50C(2), and must do so even where the assessee never asked. Recording the Sub-Registrar's value in the deed does not show that the seller accepted it, because the stamp duty burden falls on the purchaser.
• Vaishali Urvesh Mehta v Assessment Unit (ITAT Surat) — having asked for the reference under section 50C(2), the assessee cannot reject the Valuation Officer's report ITATHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I objected to the stamp duty value, the Assessing Officer referred the matter and the Valuation Officer came back with a figure well above my sale price, though below the stamp value. Can I now attack the report and fall back on my declared consideration?
  Not on a general objection. The Tribunal held that once the assessee herself disputed the stamp valuation and asked for a reference, and the Assessing Officer made it, the procedure under section 50C(2) was duly followed; section 50C(3) then provides that the value determined by the Valuation Officer 'shall' be taken as the full value of consideration, and the word 'shall' makes it mandatory for the officer to adopt it. The assessee cannot request a reference and then ask for the resulting valuation to be rejected because it came out higher than her own figure.
• Clayking Minerals LLP v ITO ITATCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  I bought agricultural land below the jantri rate. Can s.56(2)(x) apply when the land is not even a capital asset?
  Yes on this bench's reasoning, though it never decided whether this land was agricultural at all. Proceeding on an assumption for argument's sake that the land qualified as agricultural, the Tribunal held that s.56(2)(x) speaks of 'any immovable property' and does not exclude agricultural land; the exclusion of rural agricultural land from 'capital asset' in s.2(14) protects the seller's capital gain, not the buyer. On the second point it held that where the buyer disputes the stamp duty value the Assessing Officer has to refer the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer, and restored the matter to him for that reference. The addition was not deleted.
• ITO v Ketaben Janakbhai Patel ITATHelps taxpayer
  The Assessing Officer has adopted the jantri value for my land sale because a co-owner's assessment used it, even though I objected that the title was defective. Must he refer the valuation to the DVO instead?
  Yes. The Ahmedabad Tribunal held that once the assessee objects that the stamp duty value exceeds the fair market value, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to refer the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 50C(2). He cannot adopt the jantri value simply because the officer assessing a co-owner did so. Here the assessee had raised serious objections about defective and disputed title, and the officer knew of them. The Commissioner (Appeals) was right to delete the addition made by substituting the jantri value of Rs 4,98,83,550 for the DVO's earlier valuation of Rs 3,17,86,000, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.