TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2005 and adopting Rs. 1,68,85,645/- as the market value as per the Valuation Report of the Income tax Department (DVO) against the agreement value declared by the appellant at Rs. 90,34,200/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-II ["the CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in having referred valuation of the property for valuing the cost of acquisition at the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981 although the appellant had already furnished approved valuer's report in respect of such valuation done at Rs. 16,91,025/- as against the certified FMV adopted by the appellant at Rs. 6,25,590/- The appellant therefore being aggrieved prays that the aforesaid valuation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction for referring the FMV under section 55A wherein the Valuation determined by the DVO is less than the FMV declared by assessee. This issue was discussed elaborately by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Sarla N. Sakraney v. ITO [2011] 130 ITD 167 wherein it was held: "12. We have heard the rival submissions. As far as Ground No. 1 is concerned, we are of the view that the reference to the DVO was invalid. On this issue, learned DR relied on the order of learned CIT(A). While learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions which were cited before learned CIT(A) and further drew our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Daulal Mohta (supra), wherein, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ination of the fair market value of the property?" In para Nos. 4 & 5 of its Judgment of Hon'ble High Court held as follows:- "4.The Tribunal in its order dated 23rd July, 2004 has categorically observed thus:-- "The first issue that arises for our consideration is whether the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO under section 55A is bad in law under the facts and circumstances of the case. This issue, in our considered opinion is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the Judgment in the case of Rubab M. Kazerani reported in 91 ITD 429 (Mum.)(TM). Further the assessee also covered by the Third Member decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the case of the Krishnabai Tingre v. ITO reported in 101 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han the fair market value. In any other case, as provided under clause (b) of section 55A, the Assessing Officer has to record an opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage or by more than such an amount as may be prescribed; or (ii) having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary to make such a reference. As can be seen from the communication dated nil from DVO to the petitioner insofar as the fair market value of the property as on 1st April, 1981 is concerned, the petitioner had claimed the same at a sum of Rs. 6,25,000 as per registered valuer's report. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required t....