9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee as on 01.04.1981 in order to compute the income from long term capital gains in the hands of assessee. - decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation so declared was excessive and referred the valuation to DVO under section 55A of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter, completed assessment on the lower valuation declared by the DVO and computed capital gains at ₹ 78,97,730/-. The stand of assessee was approved by the CIT(A) and vide para 8.2, he held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in referring the impugned property for valuation by the DVO as on 01.04.1981. However, he goes on to estimate the value of property as on 01.04.1981 and re-computes the income from capital gains in the hands of assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us has pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal stands squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya Vs. ITO & Anr. in ITA Nos.1424 & 1425/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2010-11, order dated 28.08.2018, wherein applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom), the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot adopt the fair market value at lower figure. 7. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 position that the value adopted by the respondentassessee of the property at ₹ 35.99 lakhs was much more than the fair market value of ₹ 6.68 lakhs even as determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer only because in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the respondentassessee was higher than the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of Section 55A(a) of the Act is not justified. 8. The contention of the revenue that in view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words "is less then the fair market value" is substituted by the words " "is at variance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 event, an order of remand in these facts does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 12. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain questions (a), (b) and (c) as formulated by the revenue as they do not raise any substantial questions of law. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." 10. The Tribunal applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (supra) in series of cases with special mention in ITA No.587/PUN/2014, relating to assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 position that the value adopted by the respondent-assessee of the property at ₹ 35.99 lakhs was much more than the fair market value of ₹ 6.68 lakhs even as determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer 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 Section 55A(a) of the Act is not justified. 8. The contention of the revenue that in view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words "is less then the fair market value" is substituted by the words " "is at variance with its fair market value" is clarifactory and should be give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers 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 event, an order of remand in these facts does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 12. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain questions (a), (b) and (c) as formulated by the revenue as they do not raise any substantial questions of law. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." 11. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulal Mohta (HUF) reported in 360 ITR 680 has held that reference to DVO can only be made in a case where value of asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value of the land. 12. Follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
