TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proceeding u/s 148 are valid, Appellant prays to hold that proceeding u/s 148 are bad in law, invalid and without jurisdiction. 2) Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147/148 is valid. 3) Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in restricting the relief to only Rs. 14,87,380/- substituting his own estimate of valuation as of 01-041981 against the claim of the appellant and without considering the fact that appellant is only co owner for 1/9th share. Appellant prays for deletion of whole addition. 4) Without prejudice to Ground No.1 to 3 above, CIT(A) has erred in not granting just and equitable relief considering the fact that appellant is not full owner of the land but there are 9 co owners and appellant share is duly 1/9th. 5) Liability Interest charged by Assessing Officer u/s 234A & 234B is denied by Appellant same may please be deleted. 4. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal which read as under:- 1) Without prejudice to earlier grounds CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts of the case, legal position and avermen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. in ITA Nos.1424 & 1425/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2010-11, order dated 28.08.2018, wherein applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom), the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot adopt the fair market value at lower figure. 7. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The limited issue which arises in the present appeal is with regard to computation of long term capital gains in the hands of assessee. The assessee is aggrieved by the orders of authorities below in not accepting the valuation declared by the assessee being the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, which was based on the valuation report of registered Valuer and adopting the figure lesser than the value declared by assessee. The Assessing Officer had referred the matter to the DVO, who had valued the said property as on 01.04.1981 at a lesser figure. The CIT(A) though decides the issue of reference to the DVO in favour of assessee, but in the final analysis, adopts /....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the respondentassessee was higher than the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of Section 55A(a) of the Act is not justified. 8. The contention of the revenue that in view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words "is less then the fair market value" is substituted by the words " "is at variance with its fair market value" is clarifactory and should be given retrospective effect. This submission is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from 1 July 2012. The Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be applied in the present case is Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. At the relevant time, very clearly reference could be made to Departmental Valuation Officer only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of Assessing Officer less than its fair market value. 9. The contention of the revenue that the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer is sust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an order of remand in these facts does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 12. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain questions (a), (b) and (c) as formulated by the revenue as they do not raise any substantial questions of law. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." 10. The Tribunal applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (supra) in series of cases with special mention in ITA No.587/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009-10, in the case of Smt. Ratnakanta B. Agrawal Vs. ITO vide order dated 24.07.2017 had held as under:- "10. On perusal of record and after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives, the preliminary issue which is raised by way of additional ground of appeal is a purely legal ground of appeal, which challenges the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in completing assessment both under sections 50C and 55A of the Act. In the facts of the case, the assessee had sold property at Amravati admeasuring 0 H 38R. The assessee had received her share in the said property as gift from her father and had sold one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer only because in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the respondent-assessee was higher than the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of Section 55A(a) of the Act is not justified. 8. The contention of the revenue that in view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words "is less then the fair market value" is substituted by the words " "is at variance with its fair market value" is clarifactory and should be given retrospective effect. This submission is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from 1 July 2012. The Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be applied in the present case is Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. At the relevant time, very clearly reference could be made to Departmental Valuation Officer only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of Assessing Officer less than its fair market value. 9. The contention of th....