2013 (12) TMI 548 - HC - Income Tax

Whether valuation made by AVO instead of DVO is liable to be rejected - Held that - Inspite of clear directions for an estimation of the value of the property to be made by the DVO, if the valuation is more than Rs. 50 lacs, the report was submitted by the Assistant Valuation Officer (AVO) - The CIT (A) considered the description of the property and found that the method of valuation adopted by the AVO is a development method, which is the most appropriate method in the absence of any reliable sale instances and approved lay out plan as per master plan - The protest procedure prescribed in Section 50C (2) was followed in which the objections of the assessee were considered to the valuation report. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal agreed with the elaborate findings given in the report of Valuation Officer in support of the fair market value - The valuation in such case could be carried out only by DVO, does not in any way affect the findings as the ground is of technical nature - The valuation report was considered in detail, and the method of valuation and the reasons were found to be valid after considering the assessees objection - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Assistant Valuation Officer under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of addition made under Section 50C based on the report of Assistant Valuation Officer.
3. Estimation of market value of land in excess of value fixed by Officers Co-operative Society.
4. Perversity of valuation report by Assistant Valuation Officer.

Jurisdiction of Assistant Valuation Officer under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act:
The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Valuation Officer (AVO) to value a property under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The appellant questioned the AVO's valuation in light of previous tribunal orders and provisions of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal had remanded the matter for denovo assessment, directing valuation by the DVO if exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. The appellant argued that the AVO's valuation was arbitrary and excessively high due to property conditions and restrictions set by Cooperative Societies.

Validity of addition made under Section 50C based on the report of Assistant Valuation Officer:
The CIT (A) and ITAT considered the grounds raised by the appellant challenging the AVO's valuation. They concluded that the method adopted by the AVO, based on the development method, was appropriate in the absence of reliable sale instances and approved layout plans. The valuation procedure under Section 50C(2) was followed, including consideration of the assessee's objections. Both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal supported the valuation report, finding it valid and in line with fair market value principles.

Estimation of market value of land in excess of value fixed by Officers Co-operative Society:
The appellant also questioned whether the market value estimation could exceed the value set by the Officers Co-operative Society. However, the authorities found that the method and reasons behind the valuation were sound, despite the technical argument that only the DVO should conduct the valuation. The valuation report was thoroughly examined, and the objections were duly considered, leading to the affirmation of the valuation's validity.

Perversity of valuation report by Assistant Valuation Officer:
Lastly, the appellant contended that the AVO's valuation report was perverse and against the weight of evidence due to specific circumstances of the land. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the findings of fact by the taxing authorities were conclusive and did not raise any legal questions for the court's consideration. Consequently, the Income Tax Appeal was dismissed based on the upheld findings and validity of the valuation process.