TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 690
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding the order of CIT(A) directing Assessing Officer to recalculate capital gain by increasing cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 as per the valuation report of Asst. Valuation Officer (i.e. Rs. 1,68,468/- and Rs. 1,98,428/-) by 50% instead of rejecting the said valuation report and accepting cost as per the claim of assessee in his return (i.e. Rs. 5,08,170/- and Rs. 6,60,225/-)? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in upholding action of Assessing Officer in making reference to the valuation officer u/s. 55A of the Act by Assessing Officer and in putting reliance on the said valuation report for calculating capital gain when the value claimed by assessee is higher than the FMV as determined by the said valuation report?" 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2000-01 on 7.3.2001 along with valuation report of the registered valuer. Original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 13.3.2003. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer reopened the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that reference to valuation officer is only an aid, an instrument and too to the A.O. for use in case of needed and his discretion for making good and fair assessment at his option there is no bar to use this power for reassessment. We also have taken the note of section 50C has been introduced and the scope of section 55A is enlarged for ascertaining the market value which is possible sale value the use of section for ascerting the cost. We find that A.O. And C.I.T. (A) is justified in his action. Looking into0 the facts and circumstances of the case, the original assessment was completed u/s. 143 on 13.3.03 determining the total income at Rs. 59,996/-. The AO has referred the matter to the valuation cell and after obtaining the report from the valuation cell, i.e. the DVO, and AO found difference between the valuation shown by the registered valuer and the value determined by the DVO. In the instant case the assessee filed the return on 7.3.01 and same was processed u/s. 143(1) on 30.3.01. The matter was referred to the Valuation Officer on 27.12.2000, therefore at the time of original assessment the matter was referred to Valuation Cell and on the basis of the report, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etails are as under: Sale Rs. Date of sale Survey No. Sq. mtr. 20999.7 05/02/81 456 195-10 60000 19/06/1981 456 121-8 60000 09/07/91 456 101-91 25000 18/8/1981 461/27 205-00 12000 28/9/1981 456/27-B 144-60 56625 22/1/1982 456-41-B 126-43 90000 24/9/1982 456/20A 124-19 60000 15/10/1982 456/5 508-18 49500 12/11/82 461/5 200-00 55000 30/12/1982 456 131-5 As per the appellant, these details were obtained by the appellant from the Sub-Registrar, Rajkot Unit 1, Rajkot as per the Receipt No. 5236, dated 20.07.2006 for Rs. 20/- (search 1981 to 1982). The appellant has given Gen. Board Resolution No. 126 dated 4.10.1991 of Rajkot Municipal Corporation also and this resolution contains the details of area-wise revised dates for the said period which are on the higher side but for the same survey no. incidentally, these rates are for the property developed urban land situated in the municipal limits and therefore are not comparable. Incidentally, these details were forwarded to the Assessing Officer also. A perusal of the details show that the rate at which the property was sold was much higher than the rate at which the appellant's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant gets relief.' para - 11 We find that while valuing the property the valuation officer has written letter to assessee to file objection to proposed valuation but the assessee did not file the the proposed valuation on 12.9.03, the assessee has filed his registered valuer's report on 7.3.01, which was not given to the valuation officer. The valuation officer has finalized the valuation by taking the objection and by comparing the sale instance in that area, the assessee has not given any evidence before valuation officer therefore, the CIT(A) has considered all the objections of the assessee and given the relief to the assessee, therefore, in our opinion our interference is not required. Thus we uphold the order of CIT(A). We order accordingly." 3.4 The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. reported in (2014) ITR 238 (Gujarat) where this court has observed at paragraph No. 15 as follows: "Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that ....