9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 510 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reference made to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 55A - Held that - Reference to DVO can be made in two situations; first, the value is adopted based on report of registered valuer and second, in any other case. In assessee s case, fair market value adopted as on 01.04.1981 is based on valuation report of registered Valuer. Therefore, Assessing Officer should have applied the provisions of 55A(a) and according to said provision, fair market value claimed by assessee can be rejected only if fair market value is less than fair market value as per Assessing Officer. As fair market value claimed by assessee as on 1st April, 1981 is higher than that estimated by Assessing Officer provisions of 55A should not be invoked. The provisions of Section 55A(b)(ii) as resorted by Assessing Officer for referring the matter to DVO can be invoked only in case the valuation report is not submitted by assessee. Thus, reference made by Assessing Officer u/s.55A(b)(ii) was not correct. Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the valuation report of assessee as on 01.04.1981 obtained by him from registerd Valuer and referred the same to DVO. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) was set aside and Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of assessee as prayed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reference made to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Rejection of the valuation report by the registered valuer. 3. Adoption of the fair market value by the Assessing Officer (AO) and enhancement of long-term capital gain. 4. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reference to DVO under Section 55A: The assessee challenged the validity of the reference made to the DVO under section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the reference was invalid as the AO should have applied section 55A(a) since the valuation was based on a registered valuer's report. According to section 55A(a), the AO can reject the valuation only if it is less than the fair market value. The assessee's valuation was higher than the AO's estimate, making the reference under section 55A(b)(ii) incorrect. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Daulal Mohta (HUF), which held that reference to the DVO is invalid if the value claimed by the assessee is higher than the AO's estimate. 2. Rejection of Valuation Report by Registered Valuer: The AO rejected the valuation report by the registered valuer, which valued the land at Rs. 22,46,250 as of April 1, 1981. The AO found the valuation to be based on personal acquaintance without scientific methods or comparable instances. Consequently, the AO referred the matter to the DVO, who valued the property at Rs. 4,94,600. The Tribunal found that the AO should not have rejected the registered valuer's report as the provisions of section 55A(a) were not applicable in this case. 3. Adoption of Fair Market Value and Enhancement of Long-Term Capital Gain: The AO adopted the fair market value of Rs. 4,94,600 as estimated by the DVO, leading to an enhancement of the long-term capital gain by Rs. 28,60,863. The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the DVO under section 55A(b)(ii) was incorrect and that the AO should have accepted the valuation provided by the registered valuer. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim based on the registered valuer's report, valuing the land at Rs. 22,46,250 as of April 1, 1981. 4. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 6,48,272 under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, based on the difference in valuation of the capital asset. Since the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim in the quantum proceedings, the penalty did not survive. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, stating that it was consequent to the quantum proceedings where relief had been granted. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO. The reference to the DVO under section 55A was deemed invalid, and the valuation report by the registered valuer was accepted. Consequently, the enhancement of long-term capital gain and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) were set aside. The appeals were pronounced in favor of the assessee on September 30, 2015.
|
