2014 (5) TMI 395 - AT - Income Tax

Enhancement of fair market value of land Valuation done by DVO Re-calculation of LTCG Held that - There was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) - after the set aside of the matter by the ITAT, the AO got the property valued from the DVO of the Income tax Department - The valuation report was received by him during assessment proceedings but ignoring the valuation report, he estimated the fair market value of the land as was done originally - CIT(A) has rightly pointed out that there is a specific provision u/s 55 of the Act - once the valuation report is obtained by the Assessing Officer, it is binding on him - The CIT(A) has only directed the AO to re-compute the capital gain as per the report of the DVO there was no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Valuation of unquoted shares for calculating long term capital gains.
2. Admissibility of valuation report from District Valuation Officer.
3. Compliance with Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Valuation of unquoted shares for calculating long term capital gains:
The case involved the valuation of unquoted shares for determining long term capital gains. The assessee sold 83 shares of a company and revalued the assets of the company at market value as on 01.04.1981. The Assessing Officer initially adopted a lower value for the land, resulting in a dispute. The CIT(A) enhanced the market value of the land, but the Assessing Officer still disagreed. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to obtain a valuation report from the District Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer received the report but disregarded it, maintaining the original valuation. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation by the DVO and recalculate the long term capital gains. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the binding nature of the valuation report obtained by the Assessing Officer. The appeal by the Revenue challenging the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed.

2. Admissibility of valuation report from District Valuation Officer:
The dispute centered on the admissibility of the valuation report obtained from the District Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) highlighted the specific provision under Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which binds the Assessing Officer to the valuation report once obtained. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gains based on the DVO's report, emphasizing the mandatory nature of accepting such reports. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the legal obligation of the Assessing Officer to consider and apply the valuation obtained from the DVO.

3. Compliance with Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The judgment underscored the importance of compliance with Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the fair market value of capital assets. It was noted that once a valuation report is obtained by the Assessing Officer, it becomes binding unless there are valid reasons provided for disagreement. The CIT(A) pointed out the failure of the Assessing Officer to justify disregarding the DVO's valuation report, emphasizing the legal obligation to accept such reports. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, reinforcing the requirement for Assessing Officers to adhere to valuation reports obtained under Section 55A.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of proper valuation of assets for tax purposes, the mandatory nature of accepting valuation reports obtained under Section 55A, and the legal obligation of Assessing Officers to comply with such reports in determining capital gains.

← Previous Next →