9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- per acre. Accordingly, we reverse the order of CIT(A) in this regard and direct him to adopt the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as declared by the assessee. Deduction u/s 54F - HELD THAT:- In case the fair market value adopted at a figure shown by the assessee, then in case it is necessary to adjudicate the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer may provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in this regard to furnish complete information and thereby decide the said issue. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed as indicated above. - ITA No.1424/PUN/2017 And ITA No.1425/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2018 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM For The Appellant : Shri S.N. Puranik For The Respondent : Shri Yogesh Kamat ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: . Both the appeals filed by related assessee are against separate orders of CIT(A)-I, Aurangabad, dated 29.03.2017 relating to assessment years 2010-11 against respective orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins. The assessee had 25% share in the said property i.e. to the extent of ₹ 55,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer from the return of income noted that the assessee had not disclosed any details of capital gains nor declared any income in the computation of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the same, the assessee vide letter dated 04.06.2013 pointed out that he had already filed the return of income, which may be considered. The case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The assessee explained that it had sold land measuring 13 acres in total. The cost of acquisition for the land as on 01.04.1981 was adopted as per the record available for financial year 1989-90. For the first piece of land out of Gut No.169, the same was valued at the rate of ₹ 80/- per square meter and for the second Gut No.176, same was adopted at ₹ 100/- per square meter. The cost of acquisition of land measuring 2675 square meters at the rate of ₹ 80/- per square meter worked out to ₹ 2,14,007/- and for land measuring 52,967 square meters a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Capital Gains, has been deliberated upon by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom) and it has been held 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 not been able to point out how the aforesaid decision is inapplicable to the present facts nor has the revenue pointed out that the decision in Daulal Mohta HUF (supra) has not been accepted by the revenue. On the aforesaid ground alone, this appeal need not be entertained. However, as submissions were made on merits, we have independently examined the same. 7 . We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less than the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer the issue of valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer in exercise of its power under Sections 131, 133(6) and 142(2) of the Act is entirely based upon the decision of the Guwahati High Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra). However, the Apex Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra) has reversed the decision of the Guwahati High Court and held that if the power to refer any dispute with regard to the valuation of the property was already available under Sections 131(1), 136(6) and 142(2) of the Act, there was no need to specifically empower the Assessing Officer to do so in circumstances specified under Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be made to 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):- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted at a figure lesser than the value declared by the assessee. In this regard, I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the order of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (supra), wherein the Hon‟ble High Court held 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 not been able to point out how the aforesaid decision is inapplicable to the present facts nor has the revenue pointed out that the decision in Daulal Mohta HUF (supra) has not been accepted by the revenue. On the aforesaid ground alone, this appeal need not be entertained. However, as submissions were made on merits, we have independently examined the same. 7 . We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to contend to the contrary. 10. The contention of the revenue that the Assessing Officer is entitled to refer the issue of valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer in exercise of its power under Sections 131, 133(6) and 142(2) of the Act is entirely based upon the decision of the Guwahati High Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra). However, the Apex Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra) has reversed the decision of the Guwahati High Court and held that if the power to refer any dispute with regard to the valuation of the property was already available under Sections 131(1), 136(6) and 142(2) of the Act, there was no need to specifically empower the Assessing Officer to do so in circumstances specified under Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be made to 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 ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
