9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DVO why the value proposed by him should not be finalized. For the reasons best known to her, the Assessee chose not to participate in the proceedings before the DVO. Consequently, it is too late in the day for the Assessee to question the determination by the DVO of the fair market value of the property in question. In the circumstances of the present case where the Assessee was fully conscious of a reference having been made to the DVO and chose not to participate in the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment on that basis cannot be said to be erroneous. The AO was conscious that the valuation report would necessitate the re-opening of the assessment if it was found that what was declared by the Assessee as the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 55A of the Act. 4. The background facts are that during the AY in consideration, the Assessee sold a residential property at Plot No. 3, Pocket-5, Block-E, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi for ₹ 77,50,000/- by a registered deed dated 14th December, 2007. According to the Assessee, the value disclosed in the sale deed was as per the circle rate prevalent at the relevant point in time. The Assessee claimed that the said property had been purchased on 3rd February, 2004 for ₹ 40,33,000/- and that she had a 1/6th share in the said property. 5. In the income tax return filed on 19th March 2009, the Assessee declared an income of ₹ 1,38,007/-. In the course of the assessment proceedings itself, the Assessing Officer ('AO') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised about the Assessee not having received a notice from the DVO in the valuation proceedings. It was urged, on the strength of the decision in K.P. Verghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and other decisions, was that an addition could not be made only on the basis of the valuation report. 8. The above objections were negatived by the AO and a re-assessment order came to be passed on 10th March, 2014 making an addition of ₹ 48,21,216/-. After the CIT (A) confirmed the above addition by dismissing the Assessee's appeal on 18th March 2015, the Assessee went before the ITAT which by the impugned order has dismissed her appeal. In the impugned order, the ITAT noted that grounds on which the re-assessment order was challenged were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons best known to her, the Assessee chose not to participate in the proceedings before the DVO. Consequently, it is too late in the day for the Assessee to question the determination by the DVO of the fair market value of the property in question. In the circumstances of the present case where the Assessee was fully conscious of a reference having been made to the DVO and chose not to participate in the resultant proceedings, the reopening of the assessment on that basis cannot be said to be erroneous. The AO was conscious that the valuation report would necessitate the re-opening of the assessment if it was found that what was declared by the Assessee as the value of the property was different than what emerged in the report of the DVO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
