9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No. 1612/PN/2012 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2014 - G. S. Pannu (Accountant Member) And R. S. Padvekar (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : S. P. Walimbe For the Respondent : V. L. Jain ORDER R. S. Padvekar (Judicial Member) In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Pune dated 27-03-2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09. The Revenue has taken the multiple grounds but the following are the effective grounds: 1. (3). The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that that the valuation of the registered valuer of the assessee should be accepted and not the valuation given by the DVO wherein reference in an identical case, one among th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01-04-1981. 3. The Assistant Valuation Officer communicated the rate of the land under consideration in 1989 of ₹ 20,000/- to ₹ 30,000/- per hectare. The Assessing Officer has adopted the rate of 40% less than the value of land as in the year 1989 based on advice of the Assistant Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer worked out the fair market value of the land more particularly the assessee s share at ₹ 4,963/- and adopting the said figure, worked out the indexed cost of acquisition at ₹ 27,350/- as against ₹ 49,03,900/- adopted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, worked out the Long Term Capital Gain at ₹ 50,97,250/- as against ₹ 2,20,704/- declared by the assessee. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue of valuation to the DVO only because in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the respondent-assessee was higher than the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of s. 55A(a) of the Act is not justified. 8. The contention of the Revenue that in view of the amendment to s. 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words is less than the fair market value are substituted by the words is at variance with its fair market value is clarifiactory and should be given retrospective effect. This submission is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from 1st July, 2012. The Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
