9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowing the claim of exemption under s. 54B by wrongly interpreting the definition of parent as given in the relevant section." 2. Apropos ground Nos. 1 and 2, the assessee contends that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of assessment initiated by assuming jurisdiction under s. 148 of the IT Act, when the normal assessment proceedings were still pending. The facts are that the original assessment was completed on 26th March, 2004. This was cancelled vide order dt. 8th Sept., 2004 under s. 263, by the learned CIT. Notice under s. 142(1) of the IT Act was served on the assessee on 11th Feb., 2002. Return in response thereto was filed on 31st March, 2004. It was processed on 12th July, 2002. Notice under s. 148 was also issued on the same date. The contention of the assessee is that while normal assessment in terms of s. 143(2) of the Act was pending, the AO erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings on 12th July, 2002. 3. The learned CIT(A) has rejected this contention of the assessee by observing as follows: "The additional ground of appeal so taken being legal ground for which no investigation on facts was required is admitted. But as seen from the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment, the AO was of the opinion that Rs. 4,000 per Marla was the rate to be taken. Ultimately, vide the first assessment order, Rs. 9,200 per Marla was accepted as the rate as per mutual understanding. In the proceedings under s. 263 of the Act, the rate arrived at was Rs. 768 per Marla. The first assessment order was, thus, set aside. In the set aside assessment proceedings, the AO made a reference to the valuation officer. As per the valuation officer's report, Rs. 3,670 per Marla was the rate arrived at. The AO, however, ignored the valuation officer's said report and took the value at Rs. 768 per Marla, as arrived at in the proceedings under s. 263 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) upheld the AO's order in this regard. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the AO ignoring the valuation officer's report, though it is settled that the valuation officer's report, in such cases, is binding on the AO; that the learned CIT(A) has legally erred in observing that the valuation officer's report was advisory; and that in this regard, reference is to be made under s. 55A of the IT Act r/w s. l6A(6) of the WT A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as above, that the DVO's report is binding on the AO in such cases, we direct the AO to accept the DVO's report and to adopt the fair market value of Rs. 3,670 per Marla. Ground No. 3 is thus accepted. 13. Ground No. 4 states that the learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the claim of exemption under s. 54B by wrongly interpreting the definition of "parent" as given in the said section. In this regard, the findings of the learned CIT(A) are as follows: "On the issue of claim of exemption as made by the appellant under s. 54B of the IT Act, I do not find merits in the same because of the peculiar facts of the case as existing in the case of appellant. The AO by referring to the word 'parent' as appearing in s. 54B has not accepted the claim of appellant that his late uncle Shri Buta Singh fell in the category of the parent. It is the claim of appellant based on the definition of parent as in advanced Law Lexicon Dictionary that 'parent is generally understood to mean father or mother but it may also mean any lineal ancestor'. It is the claim of the appellant that his uncle Shri Buta Singh having no child, therefore, the appellant for all practical purposes was the only lineag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved on both of them in equal shares; that the land held by the assessee's father was sold out during his lifetime, whereas the land of S. Buta Singh finally came to be owned by the assessee through will of S. Buta Singh; that S. Buta Singh, real uncle of the assessee, had no child and the assessee was the only child of his father, S. Jeewan Singh; that thus, for all purposes, the assessee was the only lineal descendant of his grandfather; that the assessee had lost his father much before the death of his uncle and there being no child of his uncle, the assessee had been putting up with him and taking care of the agricultural land held by him; and that under these circumstances, though S. Buta Singh never thought of adopting him as his son, he willed his agricultural land in the assessee's name. 16. The learned Departmental Representative has controverted the assertion made by the assessee, stating that under no circumstances does the word "uncle" fall within the definition of "parent". 17. We find that earlier, S. Buta Singh, the uncle of the assessee had made a will in favour of the assessee's cousin, S. Amar Singh, who was the son of the real Bua of the assessee. This will w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
