Tribunal Upholds Valuation Referral to DVO Despite Assessee's Objection

The Tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) filed by the assessee, emphasizing no mistake was apparent from its previous order. The Tribunal upheld its direction for the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the cost of acquisition as of 01.04.1981, despite the assessee's contention against it. The Tribunal reiterated the binding nature of decisions by Coordinate Benches and jurisdictional High Courts, maintaining its decision without rectification. The order was pronounced on 23.11.2015.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Miscellaneous Applications (M.As).
2. Directions by the Tribunal regarding the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981.
3. Alleged mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order.
4. Binding nature of decisions by Coordinate Benches and jurisdictional High Courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Miscellaneous Applications (M.As):
The assessee filed two M.As against the common order of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2013 in ITA.No.1428/Hyd/2012 and ITA.No.1269/Hyd/2012. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously filed M.A.No.223/Hyd/2013 in ITA.No.1428/Hyd/2012, which was dismissed on 03.02.2014. The Tribunal held that the second M.A. against the same order is not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly.

2. Directions by the Tribunal regarding the reference to the DVO:
The Tribunal in its order dated 31.07.2013 directed the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to refer the valuation to the DVO and consider the report of the DVO on the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. The assessee contended that this direction was against statutory provisions and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ashwin Datla, which upheld the valuation by a Registered Valuer recognized by the Income Tax Department.

3. Alleged mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order:
The assessee argued that there was a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order, as it did not follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ashwin Datla and the Coordinate Bench decision in ACIT vs. Sri Narsimha Rao (HUF). The Tribunal, however, found no apparent mistake warranting rectification, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision considered all relevant contentions and case laws.

4. Binding nature of decisions by Coordinate Benches and jurisdictional High Courts:
The assessee highlighted the binding nature of decisions by Coordinate Benches and jurisdictional High Courts, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Honda Siel Power Products vs. CIT and the Kerala High Court's ruling in CIT v Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. The Tribunal acknowledged these principles but maintained that its previous order did not contain any apparent mistake and thus did not require rectification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both M.As filed by the assessee, reiterating that there was no mistake apparent from the record in its previous order. The Tribunal emphasized judicial discipline and the binding nature of Coordinate Bench decisions but found that its directions to the A.O. to consider the DVO's report, among other factors, were appropriate and did not warrant rectification. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in the open Court on 23.11.2015.

---