9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 55 A(a) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we allow the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee - I.T.A No.06/SRT/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2021 - Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'ble Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Manish Shah AR For the Revenue : Smt. Anupama Singla Sr.DR ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Surat dated 06.04.2017 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding substitution of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as worked out by DVO on a reference made u/s.55A by Assessing Officer of co-owner of the appellant without appreciating the amendment made u/s.55A by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 in its correct perspective. 1.1 The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that reference u/s.55A is invalid and bad in law. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the aforesaid grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if the need arise. 2. At the outset of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (HUF) Vs ITO in ITA No.544 /SRT/2018 dated 26 June 2019, while relying on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT Versus Gauranginiben S Shodhan (supra) and the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Pooja Prints (supra) passed the following order ; 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The relevant provisions which are under consideration are contained in section 55A, it would, therefore, be relevant to refer to the said provisions which reads as under: 55A. 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 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 claimed is at variance with its fair market value; (b) in any other case, if the Assessing Officer is of opinion- (i) that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion as substituted by the assessee with the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 is based on and in accordance with the estimate made by the registered valuer. The third condition is that the Assessing Officer should form an opinion that the value so claimed by the assessee is less than its fair market value (as per unamended provisions) or is at variance with its fair market value (as per the amended provisions). The formation of the opinion by the Assessing officer therefore has to be seen and examined in the context of determining the liability towards the capital gains and the liability towards the capital gains can be examined during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the formation of the opinion by the Assessing officer has to be during the course of assessment proceedings and not prior or subsequent to the completion of the assessment proceedings. As per the unamended provisions, the Assessing officer has to form an opinion that the value so claimed by the assessee is less than its fair market value. Therefore, only in a scenario, the value so claimed by the assessee of the capital asset is less than its fair market value in the opinion of the Assessing officer, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing offered for tax. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the provisions of section 55A of the Income-tax Act to enable the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer where in his opinion the value declared by the assessee is at variance from the fair market value. Therefore, in case where the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the value taken by the assessee as on 1-4-1981 is higher than the fair market value of the asset as on that date, the Assessing Officer would be enabled to make a reference to the Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value of the property. This amendment will take effect from 1st day of July, 2012. Therefore, the intent and purpose behind the amendment is to enable the Assessing officer to make a reference to the Valuation officer where he is of the opinion that the value adopted by the assessee as on 1-4- 1981 is higher than the fair market value of the asset as on that date and in order to check whether the adoption of a higher value for the cost of the asset as the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981, has lead to a lower amount of capital gains being offered for tax. It is therefore an empowering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 given retrospective effect. This submission is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from 1 July 2012. The Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be applied in the present case is Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. At the relevant time, very clearly reference could be made to Departmental Valuation Officer only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of Assessing Officer less than its fair market value. 9. The contention of the revenue that the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer is sustainable in view of Section 55A(a) (ii) of the Act is not acceptable. This is for the reason that Section 55A(b)of the Act very clearly states that it would apply in any other case i.e. a case not covered by Section 55A(a) of the Act. In this case, it is an undisputable position that the issue is covered by Section 55A(a) of the Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the estimate made by the Registered Valuer, if the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the value so claimed was less than its fair market value as on 1.4.1981. It would not be the case of the Assessing Officer that the value of the asset shown as on 1.4.1981 was less than the fair market value. Such clause, therefore, as it stood at the relevant time, had no application to the valuation as on 1.4.1981. We are conscious that with effect from 1.7.2012, the expression now used in clause (a) of section 55A is is at variance with its fair market value . Thesituation may, therefore, be different after 1.7.2012. We are, however, concerned with the period prior thereto. Clause (b) of section 55A is in two parts and permits a reference to DVO if the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset so claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage of the value of the asset so claimed or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do. Sub-clause(i) of clause (b) also for the same r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 1.7.2012, amended provisions were held not applicable. Similarly, in case of Late Shantaben P Patel, Ahmedabad (supra), the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has reiterated the legal position that for the transaction falling in financial year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12, the matter is covered by the earlier decision in case of Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. (supra). We therefore find that there is convergence of view as evident from these decisions of Hon ble Bombay and Hon ble Gujarat High Court that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2012 in section 55A(a) has to be read prospectively and not retrospectively. Secondly, such amendment shall apply to transactions (subject matter of determination of capital gains) which are effected during the period starting on or after 1.07.2012. No contrary High Court decision has been cited before us and in any case, the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, being the jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. 24. Further, we find that the Coordinate Benches are also of the consistent view and having been following the legal proposition so laid down by the Hon ble Bombay and Gujarat High Court. The Coordinate Bench in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the registered valuer and subsequently by the department s valuation officer, in absence of a valid reference to the valuation officer, the addition so made under the head long term capital gains so far as it relates to cost of acquisition as substituted by fair market value as on 1.4.1981 is directed to be deleted. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. Considering the decision of co-ordinate bench of Tribunal on almost similar set of fact while considering the similar contention of assessee in the said held that when the transaction of sale of land was taken during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to the assessment year 2012 -13, the amended provision of section 55A(a) would not be applicable and one shall be guided by the erstwhile provision of un-amended section 55 A(a) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we allow the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee. No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice to take other view. 5. Considering the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gauranginiben S Shodhan (supra) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pooja Prints (supra) and various other decision of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
