TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esented on behalf of the assessee. and Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned JCIT/ Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. In the assessee's appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. For that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 2. For that the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO making reference U/s. 142(A) to the Valuation Officer and the Valuation Officer was wrong in valuing the property as on 1.4.1981 under reference made u/s. 142(A) thereby the entire reference to the Valuation Officer and adaptation of the value determined by the Valuation Officer is contrary to the law and therefore, cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for submission of such comparable cases and the assessee came to know of the comparable cases relied on by the Valuation Officer only after the Valuation report was sent on the basis of which the AO completed the assessment. 8. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the market value as on 1.4.81 determined by Valuation officer when the ld. Valuation Officer erred in comparing the Valuation of the property located far away and in a narrow land ignoring the valuation of some other properties done by the Departmental Value for the purpose of acquisition proceedings which were more nearer and comparable to the assessee's property and evidence where of may filed. 9. For that the ld.CIT(A) erred in accepting the valuation a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could not be invoked for the purpose of valuation of the property as on 1.4.1981 for computing the capital gains. He had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Umedbhai International P. Ltd reported in (2011) 330 ITR 506(Cal)., wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High court has held as follow:- "6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal has come to fact findings that the Department has not brought any material on record that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion having regard to the nature of the assessment and considering the other relevant circumstances for making reference to the Departmental Valuation Office under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee less than its fair market value is sine qua non. Reasons recorded after order of reference for valuation of the registered valuer is not the substitute of pre-decisional formation of opinion. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has correctly held accepting the decision of the first appellate authority that on the facts and circumstances of the case there is no applicability of clause (b) of section 55A which is mean for other purpose. Both the authorities have considered the well settled principles of law regarding the applicability of section 55A and various judgments of the court on this issue have been considered. We have no doubt those judgments have been appropriately applied. When the law is settled and also the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbly submitted that since the capital gain is required to be worked out on the fair market value of the property on the date of the sale deed, respondent No.1 has acted within jurisdiction for making reference to the valuation officer under the provisions of section 55A of the Act. 14. Therefore, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer had, at no point of time, formed an opinion that the fair market value, in substitution of the cost of acquisition, as called by the assessee was required to be disturbed because prescribed parameters were fulfilled. In fact, as can be seen from the affidavit-in-reply the only ground on which reference was made to the valuation officer was that the value declared by the assessee as on the date of t....