TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al reasons appeal could not be filed well in time. Certificate from Samata Hospital is being annexed with the application. After considering the application, we are satisfied that the assessee has been prevented by reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal in time, and therefore, we condone the delay of three days, and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged reopening of the assessment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 18.12.2012 declaring total income at Rs.11,93,640/- . This return was processed under section 143(1). Thereafter, the ld.AO has reopened the assessment on ground that DIT(Investigation) received an information tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quisition at Rs.14,87,267/- as on 1.4.1981 on the basis of registered valuer's report. He made reference under section 55A of the DVO who determined cost of acquisition at Rs.2,35,413/-. On the basis of DVO's report, the ld.AO has calculated capital gain assessable in the hands of the assessee. He worked out such capital gain at Rs.99,29,384/- and made addition. The working of the AO reads as under: Rate Adapted by the DVO 110.8 Revised Cost of Acquisition as per DVO valuation 235413 Revised Indexed cost of acquisition as per DVO valuation 1847993 LTCG as per ROI(Before Deduction) 4274957 LTCG after giving effect to DVO's report 14102007 Deduction Claimed u/s 54EC 4067847 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iture on transfer biii 0 iv Total (bi + bii +biii) biv 14364966 Balance (2 a - biv) 2c 5251701 d Deduction under sections 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F 54G/54GA 2d E Net Balance (2C-2D) 2,51,701 8. On the strength of the above details, he submitted that there is no coherence between formation of belief vis-à-vis information available with the AO. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO. 9. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. A perusal of the valuation report filed by the assessee would indicate that he has disclosed full value of consideration and cost of acquisition and capital gain accrued to him. Thereafter, he has disclosed net capital ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....981 is more than the fair market value assumed by the AO for making a reference to the DVO, then he cannot make a reference under section 55A. The discussion made by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this connection reads as under: "15. Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55 A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the Registered Valuer, if the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the value so claimed was less than its fair market value as on 1.4.1981. It would not be the case of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e had relied on the estimate made by the Registered Valuer for the purpose of supporting its value of the asset. Any such situation would be governed by clause (a) of section 55A of the Act and the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to clause (b) thereof as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. 1TO [20091 310 ITR31/181 Taxman 191 (Guj.) In the said decision, it was held and observed as under:- "10. Under clause(a) of sec. 55A of the Act under the Assessing Officer is entitled to make the reference to the Valuation Officer in a case where the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the Registered Valuer, if the Assessing Officer is of the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ITAT in this connection reads as under: "10. We have considered this decision in ITA No.2027/Ahd/2015 in the case of Shri Devendra Rasiklal Shah Vs. DCIT (supra) wherein para-8 of the Bombay High Court decision has been reproduced, which reads asunder: "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 app....