9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 551 - AT - Income TaxJurisdiction of AO to refer the matter to the valuation officer u/s 55A ignoring the fact that the fair market value of the property differs by more than 15% - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - In view of decision of HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER 2008 (4) TMI 292 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT reference by the AO to the DVO u/s. 55A for valuation of FMV of the property as on 1.4.1981 is not valid for the reasons that FMV declared by the assessee as per Government registered valuer s report was more than the FMV as estimated by the DVO. Since determination of the FMV as on 1.4.1981 was based on the report of the DVO the same is held to be invalid. Consequently estimation of the FMV of the property as on 1.4.1981 as made by the assessee is directed to be accepted. Ground of the assessees is allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order on quantum of assessment under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2008-09. Dispute over deletion of addition based on DVO's report under section 55A regarding fair market value of property. Analysis: 1. The appeal by the Revenue challenges the order dated 25th March 2011 for the assessment under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2008-09. The main dispute is the deletion of an addition of Rs. 30,03,122 based on the DVO's report regarding the fair market value of a property. 2. The assessee, a co-owner of a plot, entered into a development agreement and valued the property at Rs. 7,37,50,000. The Assessing Officer referred the property's value as on 1st April 1981 to the DVO under section 55A. The DVO's report differed from the assessee's value, leading to the addition in long term capital gains. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction under section 55A(a) to refer the valuation to the DVO when the fair market value disclosed by the assessee was not lower than the actual fair market value. This decision was supported by various legal precedents. 4. The Tribunal emphasized that for a reference to the DVO under section 55A, the Assessing Officer must form an opinion that the fair market value exceeds the value claimed by the assessee by more than 15%. In this case, the Assessing Officer did not provide any basis for questioning the value claimed by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. 5. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the reference to the DVO was not valid as the condition of section 55A was not met. The order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was confirmed based on legal principles and precedents cited in the case. In summary, the judgment revolves around the validity of the Assessing Officer's reference to the DVO under section 55A regarding the fair market value of a property. The decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the necessity for the Assessing Officer to have a valid basis for questioning the value declared by the assessee before making such a reference. The legal analysis and precedents cited supported the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, confirming the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
|
