Valuation Officer reference is for valuation, so limitation under s.155(15) does not bar assessment or reassessment

ITAT KOLKATA (AT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the assessee's plea that the assessment order was time-barred under s.155(15). The Tribunal held that a reference to the Valuation Officer is for valuation, not an appellate revision, so s.155(15) limitation does not apply. Earlier limitations for references were replaced by provisions allowing DVO reference for assessment/reassessment without specific sectional limits effective 01.10.2014. A contrary Coordinate Bench decision was distinguished for overlooking the amended law, and all grounds of appeal were dismissed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the assessment order dated 06.04.2021 under section 143(3) is barred by limitation under section 153(1) read with Explanation 1(v) where the Assessing Officer made a reference to the Valuation Officer and received the Valuation Officer's report on dates within the limitation period.

2. Whether the reference to the Valuation Officer was made under an incorrect provision (section 142(2A) or otherwise), and if so whether that renders the assessment time-barred or invalid.

3. Whether section 155(15) (amendment of assessment where stamp-duty value is revised in appeal/revision/reference) applies so as to require the Assessing Officer to have passed an assessment within the original limitation period and thereafter amend under section 155(15).

4. Whether the estimated fair market value adopted by the Assessing Officer based on the Valuation Officer's report (DVO/AVO) can be set aside on grounds that (a) valuation was not property-specific, (b) the DVO applied area/circle rates improperly, or (c) the assessee's stamp-duty value or declared consideration should have been preferred.

5. Whether decisions of coordinate benches (specifically the Ahmedabad decision relied upon by the assessee) or other cited authorities require interference with the CIT(A)'s and Assessing Officer's findings.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Limitation under section 153(1) and exclusion under Explanation 1(v)

Legal framework: Section 153(1) prescribes the period within which an order of assessment under section 143/144 must be made; Explanation 1(v) excludes the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under section 142A(1) and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer. Provisos extend limitation where remaining period is less than sixty days and COVID-related extensions (TOLA and Supreme Court orders) affected limitation periods.

Precedent treatment: The assessee relied on a coordinate bench (Ahmedabad) holding that referral under section 142A made assessment time-barred; Tribunal here reviews that authority in light of statutory amendments and facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepts that a reference to the Valuation Officer was made on 07.11.2019 and the report dated 19.12.2019 was received by the AO on 05.02.2020. The period from 07.11.2019 to 05.02.2020 therefore falls within Explanation 1(v) and must be excluded when computing limitation under section 153(1). After excluding that period, remaining limitation extended into the period when the COVID-19 suspension/extension of limitation (TOLA and Supreme Court orders) operated, thus the order passed on 06.04.2021 was not time-barred.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - exclusion under Explanation 1(v) applies where a valid reference under section 142A is made and the AO receives the report later; COVID-era extensions further prevent the order being time-barred in this fact situation. Obiter - general observations on interplay with other provisions made in rejecting the appellant's alternate limitation argument.

Conclusion: Ground nos. 1, 2 and 4 (limitation challenge) are dismissed; the assessment is not barred by limitation.

Issue 2 - Validity of reference provision invoked (section 142A v. section 142(2A))

Legal framework: Section 142A empowers AO to make reference to a Valuation Officer "for the purposes of assessment or reassessment" to estimate value, with powers and timeframes. Section 142(2A) pertains to valuation of inventory by Cost Accountant (distinct context). The amendment to section 142A (w.e.f. 01.10.2014 and as further amended) broadened scope to any asset, property or investment for assessment/reassessment purposes.

Precedent treatment: Coordinate bench decision relied on by the assessee premised on pre-amendment/limited scope of section 142A; Tribunal distinguishes that decision on the basis of amended text applicable to AY 2017-18.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observes that the assessment order does not explicitly state reference under section 142(2A). In any event, the post-2014 amended section 142A permits AO to refer any asset/property for valuation for assessment purposes. Therefore the reference to the Valuation Officer for fair market value is within the AO's statutory vesting under section 142A, and is not vitiated by invocation of an incorrect section. The Tribunal rejects the contention that the reference must strictly be under section 50C(2) when contesting stamp-duty valuation in context of sale consideration; instead section 142A as amended authorises valuation references for assessment purposes.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - after the statutory amendment effective for AY 2017-18, the AO has power under section 142A to refer valuation of immovable property for assessment purposes; mislabelling of the section in records does not invalidate the reference where substance conforms to amended section 142A. Obiter - comparisons with pre-amendment law and older authorities.

Conclusion: The reference to the Valuation Officer was competent under section 142A as applicable to AY 2017-18; the reference does not render assessment invalid.

Issue 3 - Applicability of section 155(15)

Legal framework: Section 155(15) requires amendment of assessment where capital gain was computed by adopting stamp-duty value under section 50C(1) and that stamp-duty value is subsequently revised in an appeal/revision/reference mentioned in section 50C(2)(b); it prescribes amendment procedure and limitation for such amendments.

Precedent treatment: The assessee urged application of section 155(15) to treat DVO reference as a "reference" envisaged by section 155(15); Tribunal examines statutory language and context.

Interpretation and reasoning: Section 155(15) applies only where the full value of consideration has been taken to be the value adopted by a State Government authority for stamp-duty (section 50C) and that value is subsequently revised in an appeal/revision/reference before an appellate forum. A reference to the Valuation Officer for estimation of fair market value is not an appeal or revision before an appellate authority and thus does not fall within the terms of section 155(15). The assessee's reading that section 155(15) applies to DVO referrals is a misconstruction; the provision contemplates post-assessment appellate revision of stamp-duty value, not primary valuation references under section 142A.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - section 155(15) is inapplicable to a Valuation Officer's report procured under section 142A; it applies only where a stamp-duty value is revised in an appeal/revision/reference before specified appellate fora.

Conclusion: Ground no. 3 is dismissed; section 155(15) does not render the assessment invalid or require different limitation treatment in these facts.

Issue 4 - Admissibility and correctness of DVO/AVO valuation (fact finding and standard of review)

Legal framework: Determination of fair market value is essentially a finding of fact; the Valuation Officer's report is an expert opinion and the Assessing Officer must give opportunity to the assessee and may adopt the report after considering submissions. The AO issued notice under section 142(1) to the assessee and the assessee did not respond to that notice.

Precedent treatment: The assessee contended DVO report was not property-specific and relied on municipal/circle rates and deed particulars; Tribunal notes that valuation methodology (area/circle rate adjustments) falls within expert judgment and is a factual conclusion amenable to acceptance absent material illegality.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal endorses the CIT(A)'s approach that the DVO's valuation is an expert opinion and a finding of fact; the AVO applied DM circle rates and CBDT valuation guidelines, producing significant reduction from stamp-duty valuation. The assessee failed to cooperate with the AO's opportunity to present objections to the valuation (no compliance with section 142(1) notice). The Tribunal declines to re-weigh valuation methodology where AVO's report is within the realm of expert judgment and the assessee has not demonstrated material perversity or legal infirmity in the valuation process.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - valuation by a Valuation Officer is an expert finding of fact; absent procedural failure or demonstrable legal flaw, the AO may adopt the Valuation Officer's report and the Tribunal will not substitute its own valuation. Obiter - comments on the non-utility of re-referring to AVO given change in property condition.

Conclusion: Ground nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 concerning the DVO valuation are dismissed; the valuation adopted by the AO (and confirmed by CIT(A)) stands as a factual finding based on expert report and on record.

Issue 5 - Treatment of coordinate bench authorities relied upon by the assessee

Legal framework: Bindingness and precedential value of coordinate bench decisions; requirement to apply correct statutory provisions and amendments applicable to the assessment year.

Precedent treatment: The assessee relied upon a coordinate bench (Ahmedabad) decision which held assessment barred where AO wrongly referred under section 142A (pre-amendment) or otherwise. Tribunal examines that decision's factual and statutory base in light of amendments effective 01.10.2014 applicable to AY 2017-18.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal finds the coordinate bench decision did not appreciate the amended scope of section 142A applicable to AY 2017-18; thus it is distinguishable on facts and law. Other cited authorities were considered but found not to assist in light of the statutory amendment and the facts of the present case.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a coordinate bench decision is distinguishable where it fails to consider statutory amendments applicable to the year under consideration; such decisions do not mandate interference where statutory framework differs. Obiter - catalogue of inapplicable decisions.

Conclusion: Reliance on the Ahmedabad coordinate bench decision and other authorities does not warrant interference; the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessment Officer's conclusions are upheld.

Overall Conclusion

The Tribunal upholds the Assessing Officer's valuation and assessment; findings that the assessment was within limitation (after exclusion under Explanation 1(v) and in view of COVID-era extensions), that section 155(15) is inapplicable, and that the DVO's valuation is a permissible expert finding lead to dismissal of the appeal. The Court affirms the CIT(A)'s order. (The order was pronounced in open Court.)

---