TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on July 22, 2009 declaring an income of Rs. 16,64,308. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer Ward 6-4 Hyderabad vide order dated December 30, 2011 under section 143(3) at a total income of Rs. 68,26,062. While doing so, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee sold plot No. 30 at HUDA Enclave, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad to M/s. Proactive Realtors P. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 1,72,50,000 on June 28, 2008. The Assessing Officer further found that the valuation of the property as per SRO is Rs. 2,12,41,000, hence invoked the provisions of section 50C, adopted the sale consideration of Rs. 2,12,41,000 and accordingly computed capital gains. The assessee objected to the adoption of SR value on the ground that the property sold was anti vastu, rocky and unevenly shaped. Therefore, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the valuation cell of the Department. However, since the valuation report was not received by the time of completion of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer adopted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Officer in his report and without confronting the District Valuation Officer with the objection raised by the assessee the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should not have deleted the addition. We find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Departmental representative. The hon'ble Bombay High Court involving identical facts of the case in the case of CIT v. Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd. [2014] 3 ITR-OL 229 (Bom) held as follows vide paras 8, 9, 10 (page 233) : "8. The hon'ble apex court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 407 (SC) ; [2003] 6 SCC 342, considered the question of valuation of asset qua the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. It has been held that a Valuation Officer can discharge the functions within the limits of statute under which he is appointed, and not otherwise. He cannot be required, nor has he jurisdiction to give report to the Assessing Officer under the Income-tax Act except in a reference made under and in terms of section 55A or to a competent authority except under section 269L of the Income-tax Act. It has been held that the Assessing Officer under section 16A of the Wealth-tax A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of appeals to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) from the orders of the Assess ing Officer under the Wealth-tax Act. Section 23A gives list of appeal able orders. Clause (i) of sub-section (1) thereof, is about objection to any order of the Valuation Officer enhancing the valuation of an asset. Section 50C makes this provision applicable even to valuation of capital asset worked out by the Valuation Officer in it. Thus, an order of the Valuation Officer determining the market value of the asset on the date of transfer under section 50C(2) is made appealable even for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as per the scheme therein. Sub-section (6) of section 23A stipulates that when the valuation of any asset is objected to in an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has to extend an opportunity of hearing to the Valuation Officer, who has made order under section 16A. Sub-section (7) enables such Commissioner to direct further inquiry to be made by the Assessing Officer or by the Valuation Officer. Section 50C makes both these sub-sections applicable even to determination of the market value of a capital asset by the Valuation Officer. It, therefore, follows that when in an appeal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perty with all necessary powers. Its order or report is made binding on the Assessing Officer and thus he enjoys equivalent status. As per the statutory scheme when the report/order of the Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) is objected to by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are obliged to extend an opportunity of hearing to such Valuation Officer. A perusal of the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, particularly paragraph 5 reveals the contention of the asses see that the Assessing Officer was not bound to accept the value decided by the District Valuation Officer, i.e., Valuation Officer. In paragraph 6, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has noted the contention that in facts and in the circumstances, the addition by the Assessing Officer was not warranted. There is a reference to report of the registered valuer furnished by the assessee to counter the order of the Valuation Officer. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was in favour of the present appellan....