TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e capital asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value as on 01-04-1981. Where the value of the capital asset shown by the assessee on the basis of the approved valuer’s report was more than its fair market value, reference u/s.55A of the Act, 1961 was not valid. Also see The Commissioner of Income Tax-13 Versus M/s. Puja Prints [2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 42/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 28-12-2016 - Md. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri R. K. Panda, AM Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Anil Chaware ORDER Per R. K. Panda, AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 07-10-2014 of the CIT(A)-III, Pune relating to Assessment Year 2007-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g inclusion of assessee s land in TP scheme and other developments and surrounding area the valuer has estimated the fair market value of assessee s land as on 01-04-1981 at ₹ 10/-per sq.ft. Since the registered valuer has quoted incomplete sale instance of 1974 without mentioning Survey Number, price of the property, Registration Number of transaction etc. said to have been purchased from Siddhajin Cooperative Housing Society the Assessing Officer held that the value adopted by the registered valuer is questionable. He, therefore, referred the matter to the Assistant Valuation Officer of the I.T. department for ascertaining the fair market value as on 01-04-1981 of the immovable property bearing No.501/1, Plot No.74-146, Near Vasant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence to the valuation officer for determining the value as on 01-04-1981 is beyond the scope of the section and therefore needs to be quashed. 5. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee and relying on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Doulal Mohta (HUF) reported in 360 ITR 680 the Ld.CIT(A) held that since the fair market value adopted by the assessee is more than the actual fair market value the Assessing Officer was not justified in referring the matter to the valuation officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us with the following grounds : 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A)-III, Pune contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the Assessing Officer the valuer has adopted the fair market value at ₹ 10/- per sq.ft. as on 01-04-1981 on the basis of only one sale instance of that of Siddhajin Cooperative Housing Society which is an incomplete sale instance, therefore, the same according to him was questionable. He, therefore, referred the matter to the Assistant Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department for ascertaining the fair market value as on 01-04-1981 who determined the fair market of the property at ₹ 3,99,000/- as on 01-04-1981. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the long term capital gain on the sale of the property. We find when the assessee challenged the validity of the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the valua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Departmental Valuation Officer can be made under Section 55A of the Act, only follows the decision of this Court in the matter of Daulal Mohta HUF (supra). The revenue has not been able to point out how the aforesaid decision is inapplicable to the present facts nor has the revenue pointed out that the decision in Daulal Mohta HUF (supra) has not been accepted by the revenue. On the aforesaid ground alone, this appeal need not be entertained. However, as submissions were made on merits, we have independently examined the same. 7. We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer is sustainable in view of Section 55A(a) (ii) of the Act is not acceptable. This is for the reason that Section 55A(b)of the Act very clearly states that it would apply in any other case i.e. a case not covered by Section 55A(a) of the Act. In this case, it is an undisputable position that the issue is covered by Section 55A(a) of the Act. Therefore, resort cannot be had to the residuary clause provided in Section 55A(b)(ii) of the Act. In view of the above, the CBDT Circular dated 25 November 1972 can have no application in the face of the clear position in law. This is so as the understanding of the statutory provisions by the revenue as found in Circular issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
