Appeals Dismissed, Acquisition Cost Upheld, Assessments Valid, Revenue Appeal Allowed for Stats,

The Tribunal dismissed the assessees' appeals, upholding the cost of acquisition as ascertainable, assessments completed within extended time limits, and valid conversion to complete scrutiny. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the reference to the DVO matter remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reference to the DVO under section 142A.
2. Cost of acquisition of the capital asset.
3. Time limit for completion of assessment under section 153.
4. Time limit for receipt of valuation report under section 142A.
5. Conversion of limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny.
6. Validity of the assessment being barred by limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reference to the DVO under Section 142A:
The Revenue's appeal questioned the CIT(A)'s decision that the reference to the DVO was invalid, relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Pooja Prints. The CIT(A) held that the reference should have been made under section 55A for valuation as on 01-04-1981 and 01-04-2010, rather than under section 142A, which was amended effective from 01-10-2014. The Tribunal noted that the correct statutory provision applicable was section 142A(1) and reversed the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

2. Cost of Acquisition of the Capital Asset:
The assessees contended that there was no cost of acquisition for the capital asset, arguing it should be adopted at nil. The CIT(A) found that the predecessor had paid 12% charges to the government for the re-grant of the property, which constituted the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the cost of acquisition was ascertainable and rejecting the assessees' arguments.

3. Time Limit for Completion of Assessment under Section 153:
The assessees argued that the assessments were barred by limitation as they were completed beyond the statutory period. The CIT(A) noted that the period from the date of reference to the DVO to the receipt of the report was excluded from the limitation period, and an additional 60 days were granted as per the statutory proviso. The Tribunal agreed, finding that the assessments were completed within the extended time limit.

4. Time Limit for Receipt of Valuation Report under Section 142A:
The assessees claimed that the DVO report was received beyond the permissible time limit. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, noting that the statutory provisions allowed for the exclusion of the period taken by the DVO in submitting the report, and hence the report was not time-barred.

5. Conversion of Limited Scrutiny into Complete Scrutiny:
The assessees contended that the conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny was invalid. The Tribunal noted that the reason for scrutiny selection was related to business income under section 44AB, and the Assessing Officer had obtained prior approval from the PCIT-2, Pune, as per CBDT Instruction No.20/2015. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected this ground.

6. Validity of the Assessment Being Barred by Limitation:
The assessees argued that the assessments were barred by limitation. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the assessments were completed within the extended time limit provided by the statutory provisions, considering the period of reference to the DVO and the additional 60 days.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessees' appeals on all grounds, finding that the cost of acquisition was ascertainable, the assessments were completed within the extended time limits, and the conversion to complete scrutiny was valid. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter of the reference to the DVO being restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

---