TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third party. No other material has come into the possession of the AO. In such circumstances, the case law of ACIT vs Dhariya Construction Company (2010 (2) TMI 612 - Supreme Court of India) is applicable. Hence in our considered opinion the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) in this regard is quite correct. Accordingly we uphold the view that the reopening in this case is invalid and deserves to be cancelled. We uphold the order of learned CIT(Appeals) in this regard. As regards the merits of the issue as we have already upheld the order of learned CIT(Appeals) quashing the assessment on jurisdiction itself. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, adjudicating upon the merits of the case is only of academic interest. Hence we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wners. The assessee had computed the Long Term Capital Loss at ₹ 66,20,439/- and the said claim of loss was based on the valuation of the property by the Government approved Valuer and relying upon the Fair Market Value of the property as on 01-04- 1981. 3. The AO, however, issued a notice u/s 148 relying upon the report of the DVO in the case of another co-owner of the same properties. The assessee objected to the said reference u/s 55A of the I.T. Act to the DVO stating that such a reference to the DVO can be made only in a case where value of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the Registered Valuer if the AO is of the opinion that the value so claimed is less than the Fair Market Valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ird party does not amount an information in the case of the appellant in as much as that firstly the appellant was not a party to the valuation proceedings before the DVO, secondly, that the appellant had not been granted an opportunity for rebuttal of the facts available before the DVO during the valuation proceedings. The appellant in this regard has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Dhariya Construction Company (2010) 328 ITR 0515 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the DVO. The opinion of the DVO per se is not information for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case had been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. The reopening has been solely done on the basis of DVO s report in the case of a third party. No other material has come into the possession of the AO. In such circumstances, the case law from the Hon ble Supreme Court referred above is applicable. Hence in our considered opinion the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) in this regard is quite correct. Accordingly we uphold the view that the reopening in this case is invalid and deserves to be cancelled. We uphold the order of learned CIT(Appeals) in this regard. 7. As regards the merits of the issue, the learned CIT(Appeals) referred to the decision of another co-owner of the same property and held that following the same he was of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
