Second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2013 should be treated as retrospectively applicable from 1.4.2005 and no disallowance for want of TDS can be made if payee has paid tax thereon. Assessee must be given opportunity to file Form 26A

S. 50C: AO cannot straightaway adopt stamp duty value as consideration for capital gains but must offer assessee benefit of reference to DVO for valuation
It is difficult to accept the proposition that the assessee had accepted that the price fixed by the District Sub Registrar was the fair market value of the property. No such inference can be made as against the assessee because he had nothing to do in the matter.

Stamp duty was payable by the purchaser. It was for the purchaser to either accept it or dispute it. The assessee could not, on the basis of the price fixed by the Sub-Registrar, have claimed anything more than the agreed consideration which, according to the assessee, was the highest prevailing market price. It would follow automatically that his case was that the fair market value of the property could not be the value as assessed by the District Sub Registrar. In a case of this nature the assessing officer should, in fairness, have given an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the departmental valuation officer contemplated under Section 50C. As a matter of course, in all such cases the assessing officer should give an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the departmental valuation officer 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 assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the assessing officer, discharging a quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law (Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (Cal HC) followed)