9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.04.1981 which was worked out to be lesser than the value declared by the assessee on the basis of Registered Valuer’s Report, is not warranted. CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made on this account. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. - ITA No.1408/PN/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM For The Appellant : Shri Sanket Joshi For The Respondent : Smt. Sumitra Banerji ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-2, Pune, dated 22.02.2016 relating to assessment year 2010-11 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in the case of Shri Rajendra Keshavrao Kulkarni [ITA No.1340/PN/2015] who was the co-owner in the impugned property sold by the assessee and hence, it is requested that the same ratio may be followed in the case of the assessee. 3. The issue arising in the present appeal is against computation of long term capital gains on sale of hotel land and building. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of authorities below in adopting the Fair Market Value of the property as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 41,400/- as determined by the DVO as against the Fair Market Value of ₹ 45,37,500/- determined by the Government Approved Valuer. The assessee has chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins in the hands of assessee. The assessee owned a hotel land, building thereon, which was sold by the assessee on 16.01.2010. The assessee had declared the Fair Market Value of the said property i.e. cost of land and the super structure at ₹ 45,37,500/-, which in turn, was supported by Government Approved Valuer. The assessee accordingly, had computed the long term capital gains on the sale of said property. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the Fair Market Value declared by the assessee as on 01.04.1981 was higher and consequently, reference was made to the DVO to determine the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981. The DVO had valued the said property at ₹ 41,400/-. The assessee has placed on record the copy of Valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 has held that reference u/s.55A can be made to the DVO only when the value adopted by the assessee is less than the fair market value. Where the value adopted by the assessee is much more than the fair market value, no reference can be made to the valuation officer under the provisions of section 55A. The relevant observation of the Hon ble High Court at page 701 to 703 read as under : 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the impugned order dated 18 February, 2011 allowing the respondent assessee's appeal holding that no reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer can be made under Section 55A of the Act, only follows the decision of this Court in the matter of Daulal Mohta HUF (supra). The revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from 1 July 2012. The Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be applied in the present case is Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006 -07. At the relevant time, very clearly reference could be made to Departmental Valuation Officer only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of Assessing Officer less than its fair market value. 9. The contention of the revenue that the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer is sustainable in view of Section 55A(a) (ii) of the Act is not acceptable. This is for the reason that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry. In view of the above and particularly in view of clear provisions of law as existing during the period relevant to Assessment Year 2006 - 07, we are of the view that questions (a) and (b) do not raise any substantial question of law. Regarding Question (c):- 11. The Tribunal by its impugned order has merely remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to determine the date on which the respondent-assessee acquired the property for the purpose of working out the cost of acquisition. No specific submissions in regard to this issue was made by the revenue during the oral submissions. In any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
