TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell as grounds narrated in ITA No.650/AHD/2017 for the AY.2012-13 is taken as the lead case. 3.The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in its lead case read as follows:- "(1) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in holding that the reference made to DVO u/s.55A of the Act to determine the fair market value of land as on 01/04/1981 is valid. (2) That on facts, and in law the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,07,585/- ade towards long term capital gains by rejecting the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 adopted by assessee. (3) The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal." 4. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee is small agriculturist and has filed return of income on 04-12-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,51,800/-. She has also income from long term capital gain and shown in computation of income filed by her. The assessees with other four co-owners have sold. one agriculture land situated at Block No 31, R S No 22+23, Village Karadva Tal Choryasi, Dist. Surat. Total area....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purpose Rs. 50,35,902/- Less: LTCG offered for taxation in return of income Rs. 1,28,317/- Balance LTCG for taxation purpose Rs. 49,07,585/- Since, the assessee has offered Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 1,28,317/-, therefore Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,07,585/- (Rs. 50,35,902 - Rs. 1,28,317). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that the impugned piece of land bearing Block No.31, R.S. No.22+23 situated at Village: Karadva, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat, was sold, which was jointly held by her with other co-owners and assessee is holding 1/5th share therein which works out t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, be different after July1, 2012 which is applicable for assessment year 2013-14 whereas the assessee`s case under consideration relates to assessment year 2012-13 hence amended provisions are not applicable to the assessee. Taking into account, the facts narrated above we note that the issue under consideration is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Divisional Bench of ITAT, Surat in the case of Shri Mahdevbhai Mohanbhai Naik in ITA No.820/AHD/2016 for AY.2010-11 dated 11.07.2018 wherein it was held. as follows:- "9. Thus reference to DVO can be made in two situations; first, the value is adopted based on report of resisted valuer and second, in any other case. In assessee's case, fair market value adopted as on 01.04.1981 is based on valuation report of registered Valuer. Therefore, Assessing Officer should. have applied the provisions of 55A(a) and according to said provision, fair market value claimed by assessee can be rejected only if fair market value is less than fair market value as per Assessing Officer. As fair market value claimed by assessee as on 1st April, 1981 is higher than that estimated by Assessing Officer provisions of 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed. 10. Further, where the fair market value of properly is shown more than the Fair Market Value, the AO1 cannot refer the same to valuation relating to assessment year failing before the date of 01.07.2012. Since the assessment made is for the assessment year 2010-11, the AO cannot make reference to DVO for the valuation of property, where value of property is not less than the value of "fair market value. This view is supported with decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bom.) wherein it was held. that Assessing Officer referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer only as on 1981 as made by the assesses was higher than the fair market value. Therefore, invocation of section 55A (a) was not justified. 11. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Gauragiben S Shodhan [2014] 108 DTR 442 (Gujarat) wherein it was observed "Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981 also, such reference was not competent. Prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect fro....