TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be based on extraneous or irrelevant reasons – the AO before making a reference to the Valuation Officer has not brought anything on the record indicating that the assessee has disclosed lesser sale price - there is nothing on the record which can suggest to ignore the report of the registered valuer and to adopt the report of the Valuation Officer - Both these persons are technical persons and before accepting the evidence of an expert, there should be corroboration of some other material – the AO ought to have not made a reference to the DVO for determination of the fair market value of the property - the report of the DVO alone is not sufficient for estimating the capital gains – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the property as on the date of sale at ₹ 15,52,800/and the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 1,62,700/-. On the basis of the said report the Assessing Officer issued Notice under Section 148 of the Act and finalized the assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act at ₹ 12,33,907/- . Against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, this appeal by the revenue. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has invited our attention to a decision in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah V. Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under the provisions of Section 55A of the Act. 14. Therefore, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer had, at no point of time, formed an opinion that the fair market value, in substitution of the cost of acquisition, as claimed by the assessee was required to be disturbed because prescribed parameters were fulfilled. In fact, as can be seen from the affidavitinreply the only ground on which reference was made to the valuation officer was that the value declared by the assessee as on the date of the execution and registration of the sale deed was lower by more than 25 per cent. There is no provision in the act which permits the Assessing Officer to disturb the sale consideration, at least Section 55A of the cannot be invoked for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer has not brought anything on the record indicating that the assessee has disclosed lesser sale price. There is nothing on the record which can suggest to ignore the report of the registered valuer and to adopt the report of the Valuation Officer. Both these persons are technical persons and before accepting the evidence of an expert, there should be corroboration of some other material. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ld. Assessing Officer ought to have not made a reference to the DVO for determination of the fair market value of the property in dispute. The report of the DVO alone is not sufficient for estimating the capital gains at ₹ 12,28,907/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
