TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the Assessing Officer if the value declared by the assessee is more than the Fair Market Value. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that no reference was made to the DVO u/s 55A of the I.T Act, 1961. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the value adopted by the A.O. was reasonable and scientific and was based on real time sale instances. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the report of the DVO relied upon by the A.O while arriving at the FMV as on 1.4.1981 is a relevant and admissible piece of evidence. 2. The facts which are revealed from the record as under. The assessee is an individual and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quidator, Anant Mills Ltd. Vs. U.J. Matain and Another 209 ITR 568. ii. Smt. Krishnabai Tingre Vs. Income Tax officer 101 ITD 317 (Pune). iii. Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani Vs. Joint CIT 91 ITD 429. iv. ITO Vs. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia 115 TTJ 935. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the reference as the Assessing Officer assumed the power u/s. 55A(a) of the Act if the fair market value is more than declared by the assessee. The operative part of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: 4.4 Thus, from the foregoing discussion it is seen that the Courts have held that the scope of section 55A as is evident from its terms, is confined to the ascertainment of the fair market value of a capital asset ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value disclosed by the Assessee is less and in the case of the appellant the Assessing Officer has himself held the fair market value adopted by the appellant to be more which is already against the provisions of section 55A(a) of the Act. Now the Revenue is in appeals before us. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld. Counsel argues that the issue arising in the Revenue appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 98 DTR (Bom) 177. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah Vs. ITO & Anr. 6 DTR 203 (Guj). 6. In the case of Puja Prints (supra) the Hon'ble High Court has examined the pow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce could be made to DVO only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of AO less than its fair market value. 9. The contention of the Revenue that the reference to the DVO by the AO is sustainable in view of s. 55A(a)(ii) [55A(b)(ii)] of the Act is not acceptable. This is for the reason that s. 55A(b) of the Act very clearly states that it would apply in any other case i.e. a case not covered by s. 55A(a) of the Act. In this case, it is an undisputable position that the issue is covered by s. 55A(a) of the Act. Therefore, resort cannot be had to the residuary clause provided in s. 55A(b)(ii) of the Act. In view of the above, the CBDT circular dt. 25th Nov., 1972 can have no application in the face of the clear position in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shown at Rs. 3,97,000, which is less than the fair market value shown by the assessee as on 1st April, 1981. Therefore, cl. (a) of s. 55A of the Act cannot be made applicable. Clause (b) of s. 55A of the Act can be invoked only in any other case, namely when the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is not supported by an estimate made by a registered valuer. In the facts of the present case, cl. (b) of s. 55A of the Act also cannot be invoked. Therefore, there is no question of having recourse to sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (b) of s. 55A of the (Act. 12. There is one more aspect of the matter. For invoking s. 55A of the Act, there has to be a claim made by the assessee, before the AO can record opinion either under cl. (a) or cl. (b) of s. 5....