TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty at Chennai for a consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs, which was originally accepted by the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under S.143(3) of the Act. Later on, it was reopened by issuing a notice under S.148 and the value of the property was adopted at Rs. 61,28,849. The assessment proceedings were challenged before the CIT(A) and thereafter before the ITAT, Chennai. The Chennai Bench of ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer so as to determine the appropriate value of the property. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the DVO, who in turn, determined the value of the property at Rs. 55,22,000. It may be noticed that the sale by the assessee took place on 1.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which cannot be treated as an empty formality. It implies that in genuine ceases, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to redetermine the value. In other words, if the DVO has not followed proper procedure, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to redetermine the value. In fact, the Assessing Officer had given the assessee an opportunity to explain as to why the value adopted by the DVO should not be taken into consideration. In response the assessee submitted that increase of 16% escalation is not based on any rule of valuation. 4. The Assessing Officer observed that the DVO considered this very explanation, and he is competent in the matter of valuation, and hence, he is duty bound to adopt the value determined by the DVO and accordingly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the direction of the ITAT was merely to refer the matter to the DVO, but there is a statutory right to the assessee to challenge the method followed by the DVO not only during the process of determination of the value of the property by the DVO but also before the Assessing Officer. 6. Since the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. Though there are eight grounds in total in the Grounds of Appeal annexed to Form 36, ground No.8 is general in nature and ground No.7 is not contested, since no evidence could be placed in support of its contention, and thus, the only issue that remains to be considered is as to whether the value of the property determined by the DVO and ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the consideration for the purposes of computing the capital gains, if the difference is within a reasonable margin, i.e. less than 10%. Similarly, in another unreported judgment (Rupa Kala Srinivas V/s. ITO), ITAT Hyderabad 'A' Bench, observed that if the DVO has to consider comparable instance, then he has to consider the sale instance, which is proximate to the date when assessee sold property, but he cannot take comparable instance of sale which has happened 7 to 8 months after the date of sale of the property. Learned counsel submitted that the same rule applies here also, as the DVO has taken into consideration a sale instance which was approximately nine months prior to the date of actual sale of the property by the assessee. Added t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stance rate at 2% per month, but failed to furnish any basis except merely stating that it is as per rules. Since the assessee has a right to raise an objection even before the Assessing Officer, the same issue was raised before the Assessing Officer, but even the Assessing Officer in fact could not point out as to which rule compels them to adopt 2% escalation which works out to 24% per annum. Even the Income-tax Department, while applying cost inflation index method, does not adopt 24% per annum towards escalation in price, and hence, to our mind, the method adopted by the DVO and the Assessing Officer has no basis particularly when the method adopted was not substantiated by furnishing any rule. The very fact that the Assessing Officer h....