2013 (3) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an order passed by this Court on 30.07.2012. However, learned counsel for the parties pointed out that there is some typographical error in the question of law which has been framed. Consequently, we reframe the substantial question of law as under: -    "Whether the Tribunal fell in error in not placing reliance on the district valuation officer's report under section 142A and thereby deleting the addition of Rs.2,81,83,000/- made by the assessing officer under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts are that the assessing officer made an addition of Rs.2,81,83,000/- under section 69B of the said Act on the basis of a valuation report which he received from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....). The revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The only point to be considered is whether the valuation rendered by the DVO is to be taken into account or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revenue that the assessing officer was justified in referring the matter to the DVO for an opinion with regard to the fair market value of the property and once that opinion has been rendered, the same has to be taken into account and if that were to be so, the addition of Rs.2,81,83,000/- would be fully justified. Consequently, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of thi....