2014 (2) TMI 1372 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of capital gain - AO had referred the valuation of the property as on 1-4-1981 to the DVO by invoking the provisions of section 55A - HELD THAT - A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the conditions mentioned in section 55A of the Act have not been satisfied by the AO. Consequently, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Umedbhai International P. Ltd 2010 (2) TMI 631 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT as also case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah 2008 (4) TMI 292 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT we are of the view that the reference to the DVO by the AO is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) on the basis of the DVO s report stands deleted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appellant challenging order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
2. Valuation of property as on 1.4.1981 under section 55A of the Income Tax Act
3. Adequacy of reasons for reference made to Valuation Officer
4. Compliance with provisions of section 55A for valuation of property
5. Consideration of evidence and valuation reports by CIT(A)
6. Determination of market value and cost of property as on 1.4.1981
7. Applicability of precedents from Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court
8. Deletion of addition based on DVO's report

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), challenging its arbitrariness and legality. The key issue revolved around the valuation of the property as on 1.4.1981 under section 55A of the Income Tax Act for computing capital gains. The appellant raised concerns regarding the reference made to the Valuation Officer and the subsequent adaptation of the valuation determined by the Valuation Officer.

2. The appellant argued that the reference made was not in accordance with law, as the Assessing Officer did not specify the particular section or sub-section of section 55A for the reference. The appellant also questioned the adequacy of reasons for the reference and the Valuation Officer's valuation methodology, which allegedly ignored relevant factors and comparable cases.

3. The appellant further contended that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence regarding comparable cases of market value, as the appellant was not provided an opportunity to submit such evidence earlier. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the Valuation Officer's assessment, including the valuation of distant properties and failure to consider the actual constructed area based on municipal plans.

4. Citing precedents from the Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court, the appellant argued that the Assessing Officer failed to meet the conditions specified in section 55A of the Act for referring the valuation to the DVO. The appellant emphasized that the AO's failure to form a valid opinion before the reference rendered the valuation unsustainable in law.

5. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's arguments, noting that the AO did not satisfy the conditions of section 55A. Relying on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal held that the reference to the DVO was not legally sustainable. Consequently, the addition based on the DVO's report was deleted.

6. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appellant's appeal was based on the lack of compliance with section 55A and the inadequacy of reasons for the reference to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of forming a valid opinion before making such references, as highlighted in the legal precedents cited by the appellant.

7. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues raised by the appellant, supported by legal precedents and statutory provisions, led to the deletion of the addition based on the DVO's report. The decision underscored the significance of adherence to procedural requirements and the necessity of valid reasoning in matters of property valuation for tax purposes.