No Rectification Required When DVO Valuation Matches Stamp-Duty Value and Unadjudicated Acquisition Cost Remanded

By | October 28, 2026
0 Comment
No Rectification Required When DVO Valuation Matches Stamp-Duty Value and Unadjudicated Acquisition Cost Remanded

Issue

  • Whether the Assessing Officer can rectify an assessment order under Section 154 when the DVO’s valuation matches the stamp-duty value under Section 50C.
  • Whether the unadjudicated claim of total stamp duty incurred toward the cost of acquisition under Section 48 should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

Facts

  • The assessee-company sold an immovable property during Assessment Year 2017-18 but did not file a return of income.
  • The Assessing Officer (AO) observed the stamp-duty value at ₹3.20 crores and referred the property valuation to the DVO upon the assessee’s request.
  • As the DVO report was pending at the time of assessment completion, the AO adopted the stamp-duty value under Section 50C, noting that the order would be revised under Section 154 once the report arrived.
  • The DVO report was subsequently received and determined the fair market value to be identical to the stamp-duty value (₹3.20 crores).
  • For computing capital gains under Section 48, the assessee claimed total stamp duty of ₹19.82 lakhs (two payments of ₹9.91 lakhs) paid during purchase in 2013 as part of the cost of acquisition.
  • The AO allowed only ₹9.91 lakhs towards stamp duty without adjudicating the remaining balance claimed by the assessee.

Decision

  • Section 154 Rectification Unnecessary: Section 155(15) does not permit modification based on a DVO report; however, if the DVO’s valuation differs from the stamp-duty value, the AO may rectify under Section 154. Since the DVO’s valuation matched the stamp-duty value, no rectification under Section 154 was required.
  • Remand for Stamp Duty Verification: The matter was remanded to the AO for the limited purpose of verifying whether the assessee actually incurred the full ₹19.82 lakhs in stamp duty towards the cost of acquisition.

Key Takeaways

  • Prerequisites for Section 154 Adjustment: An assessment order cannot be rectified under Section 154 following a Section 50C reference if the DVO’s valuation report merely confirms the original stamp-duty value.
  • Duty to Adjudicate Cost Claims: Assessing Officers are required to explicitly verify and pass orders on all documented components of acquisition costs raised during assessment proceedings.
IN THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B’
Sel Resources Ltd.
v.
ITO
Ravish Sood, Judicial Member
and MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, Accountant Member
ITA No. 679 (HYD) OF 2025
[Assessment year 2017-18]
SEPTEMBER  11, 2026
Phaneendra Nag, CA for the Appellant. K. Prasad, Sr. AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Ravish Sood, Judicial Member. – The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 18/02/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 29/03/2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in completing the assessment u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire assessment order which is passed in gross violation of natural justice.
2. (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in taxing a sum of Rs.1,84,99,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs.1,82,40,172/-.
(b) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO and adopting the market value of Rs.3,20,20,000/-. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the addition being illegal and without following the prescribed procedure of law.
(c) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in applying the provisions of section 50C of the IT Act 1961, and adopting the sale consideration (stamp duty value) at Rs.3,20,20,000/- against the actual sale consideration of Rs.2,14,73,862/-. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by accepting the sale consideration at Rs.2,14,73,862/-.
3. AO erred in adding this income though the documentary evidence for sale of the property is for Rs.2,14,73,862 has been submitted during the scrutiny proceedings. Further Appellant has also requested the AO to refer the matter to valuation officer in order to obtain the fair value of the property on the plea of the property was lying closed for several years and was in very bad condition at the time of sale. AO erred in completing the assessment stating, the valuation report was not received till the date.
4. The AO for the same property assessed the value (cost) as Rs.1,98,09,900 in the AY2014-15 and issued the assessment order for which also the appellant is preferring an appeal. AO erred in arriving at the addition amount of capital gain also.
5. The AO ought to have appreciated that the Appellant’s request of referring the matter to valuation officer and would have completed the assessment upon receiving the fair value as per valuation officer.
6. The AO failed to appreciate that this was a case of distress sale wherein the sale consideration was pre-decided and was not as per the wishes of the seller and thus section 50C cannot be applied in such a scenario.
7. The Appellant submits that Section 50C cannot be applied in an automatic manner. Section 50C was introduced on to the statute to curb the inflow of cash on sale of any immovable property over and above the amount mentioned in the sale deed. However, wherein the surrounding circumstances are such that it could be established that there is no chance of assessee receiving any consideration in cash, as in the present case, then there cannot be applicability of Section 50C. In this regard, reliance is placed on the below mentioned judicial pronouncements: –

1. Wenceslaus Josoph D’Souza, ITA No. 4732/Mum/2017 [Mumbai – 1-7 ITAT]

2. KrithikaLingappan, ITA No. ITA No.2959/Chny/2018 [Chennai – 8-20 ITAT]

3. Hari Om Gupta   (Lucknow – Trib.) 21-27

4. KrishiUtpanna Bazar Samittee, ITA No.2043/pN/2012 [Pune – 28-37 ITAT]

5. Southern Steel Ltd., ITA No. 1220/Hyd/2016 [Hyd – ITAT] 38-46 Even otherwise, A specific request was made to the lower authorities, during the course of assessment proceedings, to refer the case for valuation to DVO as prescribed in u/s 50C (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

8. However, ld. AO though referred it to the DVO but completed the assessment even before receiving the report from the DVO stating that the case was getting barred by time.
9. Thereafter ld. AO calculated the capital gain by taking the sale consideration (stamp duty value) as Rs.3,20,20,000/-.
10. Ld. AO has referred the case to the valuation officer. Ld. AO, discharging the quasi-judicial function, was duty bound to refer the matter to the valuation officer u/s 50C(2) based on the claim made by the assessee . Reliance is placed on the Order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal  (Calcutta) in which it was held that

” …….. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. The legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a fair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof should be refused. Even in a case where no such prayer is made by the learned advocate representing the assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the assessing officer, discharging a quasi-judicialfunction, has the bounden duty to actfairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law…..”

11. Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Kamlesh Tiwari, ITA No. 587/JP/2013 followed the rational laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal (supra) and held that even though the assessee simply challenged the sale consideration on the basis of the Stamp Valuation Authority but had not requested to refer this issue to the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer.
12. Further reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements the extracts of which have been set out for the sake of convenience: –
12.1 Appadurai Vijayaraghavan v. JCIT   (Madras)

“…..Head Notes – Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains -Special provision for computation of full value consideration (Reference to Valuation Officer) – Assessment year 2007-08 – Whether where assessee made an objection with regard to adoption of market value under section 50C(1), Assessing Officer should have referred valuation of capital asset to Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) – Held, yes

12.2 . Anil Kumar Jain v. ITO  (Delhi – Trib.)

“…..Head Notes – Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Special provision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference to Valuation Officer] – Assessment year 2009-10 – Assessee earned short term capital gain on sale ofproperty – Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair market value – Value adopted by stamp valuation authority had not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to any other authority or Court as referred to in section 50C(2) – Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing Officer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section 50C(2)- Held, yes”

13. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Appellant submits that as per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:

“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer”

Hence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will become time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in law.

14. AO erred in not appreciating the various documents and submissions made by the Appellant.
15. The Appellant therefore prays that the Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to Quash the Assessment Order dated 29/03/2022 in its entirety as the same is against the principles of natural justice.
16. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or/amend/or/alter any of the grounds taken in appeal.”
Also, the assessee appellant has raised the following additional grounds of appeal before us:
“17 . As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), the Hon’ble ITAT has jurisdiction to examine the question of law which has been taken before the Hon’ble ITAT for the first time though not taken before the first appellate authority.
18. The appellant submits that Section 155(15) does not encompass rectification/amendment based on DVO’s report.
19. The appellant submits that DVO’s report received after completion of assessment proceedings cannot trigger action u/s 154.
20. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law in passing a provisional and contingent assessment order without awaiting the valuation report after making reference to the Valuation Officer.
21. The appellant humbly prays that the additional evidence now filed, including financial statements, ledger accounts, stamp duty challans and other supporting documents, may kindly be admitted and taken on record, as the same could not be produced earlier before the learned AO and learned CIT(A), NFAC, due to non-availability of old records and the company being non-operational. The said evidence is material for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the appeal.
22. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
2. Before proceeding with the subject issue, we deem it apposite to observe that the present appeal was earlier disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.679/Hyd/2025, dated 20/08/2025. However, the aforesaid matter was recalled on a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue in ITO v. SEL Resources Ltd. [MA No. 4 (Hyd) of 2026, dated 6-5-2026], for the reason that though the Tribunal had disposed of the appeal based on the premise that the AO had while framing the assessment made a reference to the Valuation Cell under section 142A of the Act, but the fact remained that the said reference was made under section 50C r.w.s 55A of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.679/Hyd/2025, dated 20/08/2025 was recalled for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after considering the correct statutory provisions and affording due opportunity to both parties.
3. Coming to the facts of the case, we find that the AO, observing that the assessee company had during the subject year sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 2,14,73,862/-, but had failed to file its return of income, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2021, was issued to the assessee company.
4. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee company had not carried out any commercial activities in the subject year. The A.O. observed that the assessee company had, during the year under consideration, sold an immovable property, i.e., Office No. 1410 on the 14th floor in Dalamal Tower, situated at 211, Nariman Point, Mumbai, on 24.11.2016, for a consideration of Rs. 2,14,73,862/-. On a perusal of the record, the A.O. observed that the said property was purchased by the assessee company on 06.12.2013.
5. The A.O. observed that the fair market value (FMV) of the subject property as on the date of transfer was Rs. 3,20,20,000/-. The assessee company, on being confronted with the aforesaid fact, submitted vide its reply dated 17.03.2022 that as the subject property had remained closed and was in a very bad condition at the time of sale, therefore, the stamp duty value fixed by the Valuation Authority for the said property was very high as compared to its actual realizable market price. The assessee company requested the A.O. to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value of the subject property, keeping in view its condition.
6. The AO acted upon the aforesaid request of the assessee company and made a reference to the Technical Unit (TU) for determining the fair market value of the subject property on the date of sale, i.e., on 24-11-2016.
7. As the valuation report from the valuation cell was not received by the A.O. prior to culmination of the assessment proceedings, therefore, he, as per Section 50C of the Act, adopted the stamp duty value of the subject property of Rs. 3.20 crore (supra), as the deemed sale consideration with a specific observation that as and when the valuation report is received after the completion of the assessment proceedings, then the value so reported would be revised as per the amendment/rectification/revision provisions of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O., based on his aforesaid observation, after inter alia, taking the deemed sale consideration of the subject property at Rs. 3.20 crore (as against the actual consideration of Rs.2,14,73,862/-), determined the short-term capital gain on the transfer of the same at Rs. 1,82,40,172/-.
8. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee company, despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity, failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), the latter, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O., dismissed the appeal vide an ex parte order.
9. The assessee company, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.
10. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of authorities below and the material available on record.
11. Shri Phaneendra Nag, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee company, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that as section 155(15) of the Act does not encompass rectification/amendment of the assessment order based on the DVO’s report received subsequent to culmination of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the DVO’s report thereafter cannot be given effect under the said statutory provision. Apart from that, it was submitted that the DVO’s report received after completion of the assessment proceedings cannot trigger an action under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AR based on his aforesaid contention submitted that the AO in the present case had erred in framing the assessment without waiting for the valuation report after having made a reference to the Valuation Officer.
12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the Learned Authorized Representative. Although we principally concur with the Ld. AR that the provisions of sub-section (15) of section 155 of the Act contemplates that where the AO had computed the capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset being land or building or both, by taking the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 50C of the Act, and subsequently such value is revised in any appeal or revision or reference before any authority, Court or the High Court as referred in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 50C of he Act, the AO shall amend the order of the assessment so as to compute the capital gains by taking the full value of the consideration to be the value as so revised in any such appeal or revision or reference, and the provisions of section 154 shall so far as may be applied thereto. We concur with the Ld. AR that section 155(15) of the Act can only be triggered by the AO for revising the full value of the consideration that was adopted based on the value assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, which, thereafter, has been revised in any appeal or revision or a reference by any authority, Court of High Court. Admittedly, the aforesaid amendment does not take within its meaning any such modification in the value based on the report received by the AO from a Valuation Officer. We say so, for the reason that section 50(2)(b) of the Act envisages a situation where the assessee is divested from seeking a reference of the value of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer in a case where he had either filed an appeal or revision or reference before any authority, Court or High Court. In our view, the very fact that the AO cannot make a reference to the Valuation Officer if the assessee has assailed the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority by way of an appeal or revision or reference before any authority, Court or High Court, in itself would be rendered as meaningless and otiose if the reference before any authority is allowed to take within its sweep a reference made by the AO to the valuation cell. We may herein clarify that as the conditions contemplated under section 50(2)(b) of the Act in itself preclude the AO from making a reference to the valuation cell, then it would be incomprehensible that the same could in any manner also include reference to the valuation officer.
13. Be that as it may, we are of the view that though the effect of the DVO’s report received after culmination of the assessment proceedings cannot be given under section 155(15) of the Act, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the Ld. AR’s contention that the same cannot be done under section 154 of the Act. In our view, if the valuation determined by the DVO as per the valuation report received after the framing of the assessment is not in parity with the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for payment of stamp duty, which value was adopted by the AO for computing the capital gains at the time of framing of the assessment, then the same would render the order passed by the AO as suffering from a mistake apparent from record, as a result whereof he would be statutorily bound to take the value determined by the Valuation Officer as the deemed sale consideration. We thus are of the view that the AO, on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, remains well within his jurisdiction to rectify his order and bring the same in parity with the value determined by the Valuation Officer, and thus, adopt the said value as the deemed sale consideration for determining the capital gain on transfer of the subject property.
14. Coming to the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that as the DVO vide his report, dated 04/12/2023, had determined the value of the subject property at Rs.3,20,20,000/- as was adopted by the AO for determining the capital gains based on the stamp duty value, thus, as there is no variance in the value adopted by the AO as the deemed sale consideration for computing the capital gain and that determined by the DVO, there would be no need or occasion for the AO to rectify his order under section 154 of the Act. The Ground of appeal No. 18 is allowed for statistical purposes and additional grounds of appeal No.19 and 20 being devoid and bereft of any substance are dismissed.
15. Apropos the additional ground of appeal No.21, we find that as the assessee appellant had itself stated that the same would require to be adjudicated by considering the additional evidence which has now been filed, therefore, the same cannot be admitted for the reason that it would require looking into certain facts not available on record. The additional ground of appeal No.21 is dismissed.
16. The additional grounds of appeal Nos. 17 and 20 being general are dismissed as not pressed.
17. We shall now deal with the Ld. AR’s contention that the DVO in the course of the valuation proceedings had not afforded sufficient opportunity to the assessee company as a result whereof, the latter remained divested of an opportunity to substantiate its valuation. We have perused the record and are unable to concur with the aforesaid claim raised before us. We say so, for the reason that the AO had made reference to the Valuation Officer on 24/03/2022, and pursuant thereto, the DVO-1, Mumbai had issued notice, dated 28/03/2022 wherein the assessee company was called upon to furnish certain documents and arrange the inspection of the subject property. Subsequently, reminders were issued to the assessee company on 26/04/2022, 08/08/2022, and 26/08/2022. Also, the DVO had issued a final notice vide his letter No.DVO-1/MUM/CGT/2023-24/763, dated 23/11/2023 wherein the assessee company was called up to furnish certain documents as mentioned in the final valuation report, i.e., Sl. No. I to X. However, we find that the assessee company had not responded to the aforesaid notice and failed to submit the requisite documents.
18. We further find that the DVO taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee company had failed to respond and provide the requisite details, had therein proceeded and based on the details submitted by the AO, enquiry done for inspection, relevant information gathered by him and after giving due consideration for the factors affecting the value of the subject property such as site, location, situation determined the fair market value (FMV) of the said property, viz., “Office No.1410, 14th Floor, Dalamal Towers, Plot No.211, Nariman Point, Mumbai” as on 24/11/2016 at Rs.3,20,20,000/-. Ostensibly, the AO had issued a show-cause notice to the assessee company to put forth its objections, either in person or in writing, on or before 30/11/23, if any, but the assessee company did not respond to the preliminary valuation. Accordingly, the DVO, taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee company had neither responded to the notice nor furnished any objection, determined the fair market value of the subject property vide his final valuation report at Rs. 3,20,20,000/-.
19. We have given thoughtful consideration and are of the view that though the DVO-1, Mumbai had afforded sufficient opportunity to the assessee company vide his notice, dated 28/03/2022 followed by reminders, dated 26/04/2022, 08/08/2022, 26/08/2022 and 21/11/2022, but the assessee company had neither responded nor furnished the requisite details as were specifically called for by the Valuation Officer. Also, as observed herein above, the DVO vide his preliminary valuation report had sought to determine the fair market value of the subject property at Rs.3,20,20,000/-, and had specifically called upon the assessee company to state his objections on or before 30/11/2023, if any, but the assessee company for the reasons best known to it had had failed to file any objections, as a result whereof the valuation officer had proceeded with and determined the final valuation at the same figure as was proposed by him vide his preliminary valuation. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we find no substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that the DVO had failed to afford the assessee company sufficient opportunity to put forth its case and object to the valuation as was sought to be adopted by him for the property under consideration as on 24/11/2016 at Rs.3,20,20,000/-.
20. We shall now deal with the Ld. AR’s contention that both the authorities below had erred in not allowing the claim regarding the cost of acquisition of the subject property which was purchased vide a registered deed, dated 06/12/2013 by the assessee company from M/s. Sankalp Energy Limited, inter alia, to the extent of its claim of having incurred the stamp duty charges of Rs.9,91,000/-twice, viz., (i) on 14/06/2013: Rs.9,91,000/-; and (ii) on 04/12/2013: Rs.9,91,000/-. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had initially incurred the stamp duty expenses of Rs.9,91,000/-on 14/06/2013 for executing the registered purchase deed of the subject property, but thereafter, as the sale deed could not be executed, therefore, he was on 04/12/2013 constrained to once again pay the registration charges/stamp duty of Rs.9,91,000/- and the sale deed was executed on 06/12/2013. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the assessment order wherein, at Page-6/para-3.8, the aforesaid contention was raised before the AO. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in not addressing the aforesaid issue.
21. The Ld. AR submitted that considering the fact that the assessee company for purchasing/acquiring the subject property had incurred stamp duty charges of Rs.19,82,000/- (supra), the AO ought to have allowed the same instead of restricting the claim to an amount of Rs.9,91,000/-.
22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention raised by the Ld. AR before us. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the assessment order that the assessee company had submitted before the AO that it had incurred the stamp duty charges towards acquisition of the subject property aggregating to Rs.19,82,000/-, viz., (i) on 14/06/2013: Rs.9,91,000/-; and (iii) on 04/12/2013: Rs.9,91,000/-. As observed hereinabove, it is the Ld. AR’s claim that though the assessee company had incurred the stamp duty charges of Rs.9,91,000/- on 14/06/2013, the sale deed could not be executed, therefore, the assessee company was compelled to incur the stamp duty expenses of Rs.9,91,000/- on 04/12/2013 for executing the registered sale deed for purchase of the subject property on 06/12/2013.
23. We have given thoughtful consideration and are of the view that as per Section 52B of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, stamps purchased on or after the relevant commencement date which remained unused for six months from the date of purchase are rendered invalid. However, we find that as it is the claim of the Ld. AR that the assessee company had initially incurred stamp duty charges on 14/06/2013; thus, as the registered deed was executed on 06/12/2013, the aforesaid stamp papers purchased on 14/06/2013, being within the statutory sixmonth period, were apparently valid.
24. Be that as it may, we are of the view that as the AO had failed to address the aforesaid specific claim of the assessee company despite referring to the same in the assessment order, therefore, the matter requires to be set aside to his file for the limited purpose of verifying the veracity of the said claim as was raised by the assessee company before him and adjudicate the same based on a speaking order. Needless to say, the AO shall afford a sufficient opportunity to the assessee company to substantiate its aforesaid claim, and the latter shall produce the necessary documentary evidence in the course of the set aside proceedings to the satisfaction of the AO.
25. Considering the aforesaid facts, we herein set aside the aforesaid matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verifying the claim of the assessee company that it had incurred stamp duty of Rs.19.82 lakhs as against that allowed by the AO at Rs.9,91,000/- incurred on 04/12/2013.
26. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.