9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain considering that valuation reference made by the Assessing Officer is invalid and without jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the content of the valuation report of the DVO in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Pooranmal (1974) (93 ITR 505). 4. The order of the AO be restored and that the order of the CIT(Appeals) may be vacated. 5. The Appellant craves to leave/add/amend any grounds of appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF and has derived income from capital gain and income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y DVO. The assessee has raised an objection that the reference to DVO for valuing the property for valuation u/s. 55A was without jurisdiction. For the sake of convenience, the provisions of section 55A of the Act are reproduced as under: With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset for the purposes of this Chapter, the [Assessing Officer] may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer- (a) in a case where the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer, if the [Assessing Officer] is of opinion that the value so [is less than its fair market value]; (b) in any other case, if the [Assessing Officer] is of opinion-- &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 01.04.1981 as per opinion of the Assessing Officer is more than market value claimed by the assessee and hence, the Assessing Officer cannot refer the property for valuation by Valuation Officer under clause (a) of section 55A of the Act. For similar reason as above, the Assessing Officer could not refer the property for Valuation Officer under clause (b)(i) of section 55A of the Act. The Assessing Officer could not refer the property for valuation by DVO under clause (b)(ii) of section 55A as the assessee has adopted the value as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of valuation report of government approved valuer Shri Atul Thombare. In the case of Smt. Sarala N. Sakraney v. ITO, A.Y. 2006-07 (2011) 140 TTJ 411 (Mum) has held that the fair marke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
