TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich included long-term capital gain to the tune of Rs. 4,20,84,000/-. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has claimed the capital gain to the tune of Rs. 4,70,84,000/- on the sale of house property located at B-59, May Fair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, which was jointly held by the assessee with her brother Shri Anil T. Kriplani. The same property was purchased/acquired in 1975 and the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs. 6,38,32,000/- against the sale consideration of Rs. 15,80,00,000/-. The AO noted that in the case of Shri Anil T. Kriplani, the matter was referred to the DVO for computation of fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 by the Director of Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in adopting the FMV as on 01/04/1981 at Rs. 16,32,036/- instead of Rs. 95,28,000/- as determined by the registered valuer in terms of the provisions of section 55(2)(b)(ii) after referring to comparable instances in his said valuation report. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law in ignoring the fact that the assessee has claimed the cost of acquisition of property as on 1.4.1981 at Rs. 95,28,000/- as per the fresh valuation report obtained from a Registered Valuer in terms of Hon'ble IT AT order/ direction in the Assessee's Case. However, the Ld CIT(A) proceeded to determine the cost as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleted and it be held that the proceedings were not validly initiated." 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee as well as in the case of the brother of the assessee, the matter had travelled upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide ITA No.6081/Del/2013 and 6358/Del/2013, order dated 23rd September, 2015, restored the issue to the file of the AO for adjudication of the issue afresh by observing as under:- "5. We heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. At the first instance, we shall deal with the validity of the reference made to DVO under Section 58 of the Act. The respondent assessee has challenged the validity of the reference made to the DVO before the CIT(A) on the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be taken as the basis for the purpose of valuing fair market value. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met, if the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes." 5. Referring to page 78-82 of the paper book, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the assessment order in the hands of the brother of the assessee. He submitted that the AO, in the assessment orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 01.04.1981, at any price less than the price shown by the assessee. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has to accept the valuation shown by the assessee as on 01.04.1981. The said valuation is supported by a report of the Registered Valuer and other sales instance during the period. In such facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act. Hence, we reverse the same and hold the said order passed u/s 263 of the Act as both invalid and bad in law. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." 6. He accordingly submitted that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of brother of the assessee quashing the reassessment proceed....