Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 382 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Capital gain computation - non referring the issue of valuation to the DVO - HELD THAT:- Going by the language used, it is not mandatory in the AO to make a reference to the DVO in all cases where the stamp duty valuation exceeds the fair market value - order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on this count. In Jitindar S. Chadha Vs. Pr. CIT [2019 (1) TMI 272 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it had been held that the powers of the Assessing Officer u/s 55A of the Act were discretionary and that the AO can take plausible view of the matter. Thus, in the present case also, it is our considered opinion that by not referring the issue of valuation to the DVO, the Assessing Officer had taken one of the possible views and this discretion of the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as being erroneous as has been held by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Valuation of residential flat at Nehru Apartments, Kalkaji New Delhi to the District Valuation Officer for the purposes of Sec.50C - Assessee had duly submitted the details of renovation which were carried out in the flat sold by him and the Assessing Officer, by taking one of the possible two views, accepted the sam - it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry what so ever in this regard. The Assessing Officer called for certain details and the assessee submitted them. On the Assessing Officer being satisfied with the same, the Assessing Officer took one of the possible views to which the Ld. Pr. CIT might not been in agreement but which the Ld. Pr. CIT has no power to change if the same has been taken after enquiry by the Assessing Officer. Cannot be held that order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Non deduction of tax on the expenditure claimed towards cost of improvement - It was never a part of the show cause notice and a perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee before the Ld. Pr. CIT also makes it apparent that the assessee was not confronted with this issue and was not given any opportunity to respond to the same. The impugned order also does not mention that the assessee was later required to respond on this issue. Thus, there was a complete lack of natural justice on the part of the Ld. Pr. CIT while setting aside the assessment order for this reason. Therefore, we are afraid, the same cannot be taken as a reason for treating the assessment order as erroneous. As decided in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bacchan [2016 (5) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT] without providing a proper opportunity on the issue the commissioner cannot exercise the revisionary powers. - Decided in favour of assessee
|