TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d no jurisdiction to refer the case for valuation to the Assessee by: Shri Vishwas Mundhe (DR) Revenue by: None DVO to value the Fair Market Value as on 01,04.1981 ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of A.C.C. Ltd: v/s DVO (2012) 357 ITR 160 (Delhi) has upheld the Assessing Officer's power to refer the matter of valuation to the DVO". (ii) "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and matter may be decided according to law. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income showing total income to the tune of Rs. 10,24,87,079/- on 27,09,2009. The retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... component and Raheja Tipco enclave for residential component. The total area of property for which development agreement was signed, was 298479.26 sq.ft.(Assessee had 25% share in this property) and Assessee offered capital gain for taxation proportion to land used for tower No. C and D for 10093.23 sq.ft., worked out in proportion of FSI. The income corresponding to which has been offered for taxation under the head business income during the year. The sale proceeds of flats get credited to Assessee's systemized escrow account as 1/4th of 45.5% of total sale consideration of the project (Residential unit) 4. During the year, of 2003-04 the Assessee has converted the land into stock in trade on a value of Rs. 7,37,50,000/- and treated it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loss of Rs. 1182153. The long term capital gain was treated as nil after allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Thereafter, disallowing the 25% of the motor-car expenses and depreciation on account of motor-car, the income of the Assessee was assessed to the tune of Rsw.10,25,58,010/-. Feeling aggrieved the Assessee filed the present appeal before the CIT(A)-34, Mumbai who partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee therefore, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1:- 5. Under this issue, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in which the CIT(A) has arrived at this conclusion that the AO had no jurisdiction to the refer the case to DVO for the valuation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981. The lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction uls.55A(as of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to refer the valuation as or 1.4.1981 to the DV6 in case where he is not of the opinion that the FMV disclosed by the appellant is lower than the actual FMV as on 1.4.1981. The appellant has relied on many of the decisions but I find that appellant's case squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Third Member in the case of "Ms.Rubäb M Kazerani v. JCIT(2004) 91 ITD 429(MUM)TM the relevant portion of the same is reproduced, for the purpose of clarity as under:-. "It does not talk about excess fair market value, In the present case what:! find is that the CIT has mentioned that the fair market' value disclosed by the assessee at T1 crore as' on 1.4.1981 as per 'the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o above we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the revenue. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision and the decision relied upon by the learned CIT(Appeals), we do not find any reason to deviate from such a finding and, accordingly, confirm the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this score. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue is treated as dismissed" 3.5, Respectfully following the decision of the CIT(A) vide order dated 28.1.2010 and Hon'ble ITAT, 'E, Bench in ITA No 4586/Mum/2011 dated 10.5.2013, the appeal of the appellant is allowed on this issue and the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the capital gains by accepting the disclosed valuation of the. property as on 1.4.1981 ....