9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by accepting the assessee's contention that no reference can be made by the Assessing Officer if the value declared by the assessee is more than the Fair Market Value. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that no reference was made to the DVO u/s 55A of the I.T Act, 1961. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the value adopted by the A.O was reasonable and scientific and was based on real time sale instances. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the report of the DVO relied upon by the A.O while arriving at the FMV as on 1.4.1981 is a relevant and admissible piece of evidence. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the ground of appeal. 2.1 The assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration had derived capital gains on account of sale of land at Hadapsar. The Assessing Officer had received information regarding the above sale and that the assessee had not disclosed full and true capital gains, therefore, the case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative has supported the order of CIT(A). 2.3 After going through the rival submissions and material on record, we find that the issue before us is with regard to valuation adopted by the assessee as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of report of Govt. approved Valuer and deletion of addition by the CIT(A) by accepting the contention of the assessee that no reference could be made by the Assessing Officer if value declared by the assessee as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of Report of the Government Approved Valuer is more than F.M.V. The assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration had disclosed long term capital gain on sale of property. The date wise relevant details in chronological order are as under:- a) Return of Income declaring income ₹ 349460/- filed on 31.07.2007; b) F.M.V of the property as on 1.04.1981 as per Govt. Approved Valuer Report at ₹ 32,85,000/-; c) Date of Notice u/sec. 148 was issued on 25.01.2011; d) F.M.V. as on 1.04.1981 adopted by the Assessing Officer on the basis of Report of DVO obtained in the case of other person at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. Matain Anr. (1994) 209 ITR 568 (Guj). e) ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Krishnabai Tingre vs. ITO 101 ITD 317. 2.6 In this regard, the stand of the assessee has been that the Assessing Officer has not doubted or challenged the Valuation report of the approved Valuer as provided by the assessee and referred to by the Assessing Officer. Thus, there is no reference to Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not even formed an opinion as contemplated by section 55A of the Act. The FMV as on 01.04.1981 adopted by the assessee is based upon the valuation report of the registered approved valuer. The value adopted by the assessee is not less than the Valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer. We find that ITAT, Pune in the case of ITO Vs. Sangeeta Jeevan Bhosale in ITA No.1125/PN/2012 dated 30.05.2014 and in the case of Ramdas Sonba Tupe Vs. ITO in ITA No.534/PN/2013 dated 08.07.2014 has held as under: 6. In the case of Puja Prints (supra) the Hon'ble High Court has examined the powers of the Assessing Officer for making the reference u/s. 55A of the Act as well as the amendment made to Sec. 55A (a) and held as under: 7. We find that s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held as under: 10. Under cl. (a) of s. 55A of the Act the AO is entitled to make the reference to the Valuation Officer in a case where the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the registered valuer, if the AO is of the opinion that the value so claimed is less than the fair market value. In any other case, as provided under cl. (b) of s. 55A of the Act, the AO has to record an opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage or by more than such an amount as may be prescribed; or (ii) having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary to make such a reference. 11. As can be seen from the communication dated nil (Annex. D) from respondent No. 2 DVO to the petitioner insofar as the fair market value of the property as on 1st April, 1981 is concerned, the petitioner had claimed the same at a sum of ₹ 6,25,000 as per registered valuer's report. Therefore, the AO was required to form an opinion that the value so claimed is less than the fair market value. The estimated value proposed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
