9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed to the DVO to submit the report. u/s 142A of the Act, the valuation report has to be submitted within six months from the date of the receipt of the reference. Admittedly, in the case before us, the valuation officer has submitted the report beyond a period of 15 months. Whether this period can be enlarged or condoned is to be seen. As rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the word used in sub-section 6 of section 142A is shall and in other sub sections, the word used is may . The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of B.K. Khanna Co. vs Union Of India And Others on [ 1984 (9) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has clearly held that where the words may and shall are used in various provisions of same sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is Assessee s appeal for the A.Y 2013-14 against the order of the CIT (A)-6, Hyderabad, dated 3.9.2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his e-return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 30.09.2013, admitting total income of ₹ 2,48,03,550/-. The return was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently it was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee has sold a property at Shangrila Apartments for ₹ 1,65,00,000/- as against the SRO value of ₹ 2,12,73,600/-. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the fair market value of the property as on 3.9.2012 at ₹ 2,55,28,320/-. The assessee was again issued a show cause notice, in response to which, the assessee submitted that since the date of agreement of sale and the date of execution of the sale deed are two different dates, in view of the proviso to section 50C of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, as on 1.4.2017, the SRO value as on the date of the agreement of sale should be considered. In support of this contention, he also placed reliance upon the decision of the ITAT, Vizag Bench in the case of Smt. Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari vs. ITO. The AO however, did not accept the assessee s contention and adopted the SRO value of ₹ 2,12,73,600/- as the value of the sale co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month in which a reference is made under sub-section (1) of section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, he erred in holding that the impugned assessment is not barred by the limitation. (c) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that reference to the Valuation Officer u/s.142A(1) was made by letter dated 19.02.2016 and consequently the Valuation Officer should have sent a copy of the report of estimate made under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) within a period of 6 months, i.e., by end of August 2016. Whereas the report was submitted by him only in July 2017 and consequently the impugned assessment is barred by limitation. 3. Without prejudice to ground No.2: (a) The learned CIT(A) grossly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation officer is received by the AO is to be calculated for calculating the limitation period. He thereafter referred to section 142A(vi) of the Act which provides that the Valuation Officer shall send a copy of the report under sub-section (v), as the case may be, to the AO and the assessee, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which a reference is made under sub-section (1) of the Act. He submitted that the since the words used in this clause is shall , it is mandatory for the valuation officer to follow the timeline given in the Act. He also referred to the other subsections of section 142(A), where the words may or shall are used in different contexts. In support of his contention that, where in the same sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submitted that the assessment order is to be upheld. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the relevant A.Y before us is A.Y 2013-14 and the return of income was filed on 30.09.2013. Therefore, 21 months from such date would expire on 31.3.2016. Thus, the assessment order u/s 143(3) was required to be passed by 31.03.2016 but since the AO has made a reference to the valuation officer u/s 142A of the Act, vide letter dated 19.02.2016, and the valuation report was filed on 20.7.2017, the said period will have to be excluded for determining the time limit. However, the question before us is the period allowed to the DVO to submit the report. U/s 142A of the Act, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
