TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Even application seeking adjournment has not been filed. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative. 3. In ground no.1, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 11,82,598. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee a partnership firm filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 15th December 2009, declaring income of Rs. 1,27,433. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has debited substantial expenditure under various heads called upon the assessee to explain how the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner (Appeals), though, in the impugned assessment year, no business has been carried out by the assessee, however, the assessee has not totally closed down its business, therefore, had to incur certain regular expenditure by way of staff salary, maintenance of factory premises, interest of loan, etc. He also found that the genuineness of expenditure incurred was never doubted by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that, since, the expenditure incurred was for maintaining the existence of the firm as well as earning of the interest income, it is to be allowed. Learned Departmental Representative has failed to controvert the aforesaid finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by bringing material on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alue of Rs. 1,51,53,633, adopted as on 1st April 1981 is unrealistically low. Therefore, he made a reference to the Departmental Valutation Officer (DVO) to determine the market value of the property as on 1st April 1981. As observed by the Assessing Officer, since, he did not receive the valuation report of the DVO and the assessment is going to be barred by limitation, he proceeded to compute long term capital gain by adopting actual cost of acquisition of Rs. 35,12,758, as the cost as on 1st April 1981 for indexation purpose and accordingly computed long term capital gain at Rs. 6,76,14,749. The assessee challenged the computation of capital gain before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), inter-alia, on the ground that the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me a negative figure of Rs. 1,35,144. In support of addition of the cost of acquisition as on 1st April 1981 for computing long term capital gain, assessee furnished a report of the registered valuer. The Assessing Officer being of the view that the cost of acquisition as on 1st April 1981 shown by the assessee at Rs. 1,51,53,633, is higher than the actual fair market value made a reference to the DVO to determine the fair market value of the property as on 1st April 1981. In the absence of any report from the DVO the Assessing Officer proceeded to adopt actual purchase cost of Rs. 35,12,758 to be the fair market value of the property as on 1st April 1981 and granted indexation benefit accordingly. Thus, it is a fact on record that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer can make a reference to the DVO under section 55A of the Act. Thus, as per existing provisions of section 55A applicable to assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer has power to make a reference to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value if the value declared by the assessee is less than the fair market value. The facts of the present case are different, since, the value adopted by the assessee is more than the fair market value as per the opinion of the Assessing Officer. That being the case, the Assessing Officer had no power under section 55A to ascertain the fair market value by making a reference to the DVO. Of-course, by amendment effected to section 55A by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 1st July 2012, the....