9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,26,52,624, made by the Assessing Officer on account of long-term capital gain ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has referred the valuation of the subjected property to the Departmental Valuation Officer, as per the provisions of the law. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,26,52,624, made by the Assessing Officer on account of long-term capital gain ignoring the fact that Departmental Valuation Officer is a person with technical expertise and knowledge who has been empowered by the Income-tax Act, 1961 to make the valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ober 21, 2011. On October 21, 2011 ShriS. P. Bajpai, advocate appeared with vakalatnama and adjournment application and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to November 4, 2011. When the matter was fixed for hearing on November 4, 2011 the Assessing Officer vide his order dated October 28, 2011 made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation of building and plant and machinery. Since the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer was made without rejecting the books of account, the reference itself is bad in the light of the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Sargam Cinema v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC). Therefore, the addition made on the basis of the Departmental Valuation Officer's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the reply of the assessee in response to the questionnaire issued to him, he made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for the valuation of the building of cold storage and plant and machinery. The reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Departmental Valuation Officer is in gross violation of the law laid down by the hon'ble apex court through its judgment dated October 19, 2009 in the case of Sargam Cinema v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC). In the said case, their Lordships of the apex court have categorically held that the assessing authorities could not have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer without the books of account being rejected. 6. Unfortunately, despite the judgment of the hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
