9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case was completed on 31.12.2010 subject to rectification on receipt of valuation report from DVO." 2. At the outset it was brought to our notice by Ld. A.R that in the case of Co-owner of the property similar appeal was filed by the revenue in the case of Mrs. Eula D'Souza, which was decided as per order dated 25/7/2012 in ITA No.5969/Mum/2011. It was also mentioned by him that Department has filed an appeal against the said order vide letter dated 04/04/2013. He has produced before us a copy of the appeal filed by the revenue in that case. A copy of the said order was also given to Ld. D.R. In the said order, one us i.e. Judicial Member is a party. Thus it was submitted by him that the issue is same and it is covered by the aforeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Registered Valuer report subject to remarks:- "This office has made reference to the District Valuation Officer-II, Mumbai to ascertain the value of the said plot as on 1.4.1981 and also on the date of sale i.e. 3.5.2007. Hence, the instant assessment order would be subject to rectification on receipt of the Valuation Report from the District Valuation Officer, Mumbai." Similar was the position with respect to another plot which was sold for a total consideration of ₹ 40,04,000/-, cost of which as on 1.4.1981 was taken at ₹ 7,29,000/- and long term capital gain was computed by the assessee at ₹ 1,827/- being 1/7th owner and the cost of the said plot has also been taken by the Assessing Officer with similar remarks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Rallis India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (284 ITR 159), wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer cannot refer the valuation of the property u/s. 55A to the valuation officer after he has already assessed the income of the assessee and passed the assessment order. Learned AR further submitted that based on the said decision the Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai ITAT vide its order dated 5.6.2009 in the case of ITO Vs. Hirendra Kumar B. Ruia India Safety Vaults Ltd. (ITA No. 6474/Mum/07) has held similar proposition and he drew our attention towards paragaraph 5 to 8 which reads as under :- "5 After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that the ground of the department is liable to be dismissed. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2007. The contents of the letter of the DVO are very clear. 5.2 We have further seen that even the AO has accepted this fact as the AO wrote a letter dated 27.12.2006 whereby it has been mentioned that the assessee's valuer has determined the FMV as on 1.4.81 at Rs. 49,56,350/-. In this letter, it is mentioned by the AO "your attention is drawn to the DVO-II, Valuation Cell, Unit -II, Mumbai's letter dated 26.12.2006 stating that as per the DVO's report, I hereby, estimate the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1982 at Rs. 10,34,700/-. The assessee filed its reply in response to letter dated 27.12.2006 on 28.12.2006. In this reply, it has been mentioned that the DVO has not yet passed any order u/s 55A of the Act r.w.s 16A(5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 ITR 643, has held that; " where a reference under section 55A of the I T Act, 1961 for valuation of a property is made by the ITO to the Valuation Officer when the assessment is still pending, but prior to the receipt of the valuation report, the assessment is completed by the ITO, the reference would become invalid because the purpose for which a valuation report can be utilised, namely, for completion of the assessment in conformity with the valuation report, is no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime." 7 Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd in 284 ITR159 (Bom). In this case, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the AO in the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these facts and circumstances, we hold that reference made by the AO to the DVO was invalid and accordingly, the value shown by the assessee on the basis of the registered valuer's report has to be accepted, therefore, the ground of the department is dismissed." 6. We have heard both parties on this issue. After considering their submissions, facts of the case as well as aforementioned two decisions, we are of the opinion that learned CIT(A) has rightly held that the Assessing Officer cannot take any cognizance of report received from the DVO after passing the assessment order and long term capital gain was to be computed by accepting disclosed value as on 1.4.1981 based on registered valuer's report. Therefore, we confirm the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
