Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 76 - AT - Income TaxReference to the valuation officer under sub-section 142A - HELD THAT:- 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. Is the period allowed 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 sections, then both of them contain different meaning and the word “shall” shall mean “mandatory”. As argued assessee, the AO was required to call for a report from the valuation officer within six months from the date of the reference and the valuation officer was bound to give such a report with such prescribed period. As seen from the assessment order, the AO had directed the valuation officer to give the valuation of the property as on 8.2.2010, whereas the valuation officer has given the report as on the date of the execution of the sale deed. DVO has clearly not followed the directions of the AO and also not followed the timeline fixed under the Act. When it is mandatory for an officer to follow the timeline prescribed under the Act, such delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, we agree with the contentions the assessee that the report of the Valuation Officer has to be filed within the time given u/s 142A(vi) and therefore, the assessment order passed on the basis of such report of Valuation Officer beyond the time limit is not sustainable. Therefore, we allow the assessee’s appeal and the assessment order is set aside. Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
|