AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le rate and requested the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Office ('D.V.O.' in short). The Assessing Officer referred the matter to the D.V.O. on 14.03.2024. However, he passed the assessment order dated 21.03.2024, noting that the valuation report of the Assessing Officer was not received by the Assessing Officer till then. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order in view of the approaching limitation date for passing the assessment order. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below: "As requested by the assessee, the matter of valuation of the above property has been referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer on 14.03.2024 u/s 55A of the Income-tax Act, but report in this regard has not yet been received. Since the assessment is time barring on 31.03.2024, the assessment order is passed on the basis of material available. In case of any variations of the FMV of the property as per the Departmental Valuer's Report, the order may be modified accordingly with reference to such report of the Valuation Officer." (C) The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order before the O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessable Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer failed to make reference to Valuation Officer, as mandated by the aforementioned provisions of law. In this regard, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) (supra). In this case, the request of the Departmental Representative that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for referring the case to Valuation Officer, was rejected. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: - 4.1 On the very perusal of the provisions laid down under section 50C of the Act reproduced hereinabove, we fully concur with the finding of the Id. CIT (Appeals) that when the assessee in the present case had claimed before Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation of the capital asset....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been send. Thus the appellant request that the addition made by the LAO is liable to be deleted Without Prejudice to Ground No 2 and 3 GROUND NO 4 & 5 That even it is presumed that the LAO has send reference the order passed without awaiting the DVO report u/s 55A. The Calcutta High court in the case of Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v Income-tax Officer 150 ITR 843 has held us [PB PAGE 108-110) "In my view, there is considerable force in the arguments of proceeding is liable to be quashed on the grounds that: Dr. Pal and the valuation (a) the opinion of the ITO which is an essential prerequisite for making a reference for valuation under s. 55A of the 1.T. Act is absent in the present case, and (b) the purpose for which alone valuation report can be utilised, namely, for completion of the assessment in conformity with the valuation report is no longer existent, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceeding to continue, would militate against well-known canons of strict construction of taxing statutes." T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 22.09.2021, framed without awaiting the valuation report in violation of the statutory mandate under section 50C(2) read with section 153, as well as Accordingly, the assessment order dated 22.05 2021, framed without awaiting the valuation report in dated 20.11.2024 passed under section 154 on t((2) read with section 153, forming part of the assessment record, are declared to be invalid and are accordingly quashed. As the very foundation of the assessment stands vitiated on account of jurisdictional infirmities and breach of mandatory procedure, no further adjudication on merits of the additions is warranted" GROUND NO 6 The share of appellant in property sold was 25%, and this fact was mentioned in the submission and sale deed filed before LAO on 27/10/2023. The LAO has treated the appellant as full owner by stating that no where it is written in the document submitted and also presumed that all the payment has been received by appellant. The name of co owners has given power of attorney in favour of appellant. The name of co owner Rukmani Devi, Vijay Laxmi and Manju Lata and their registered power of attorney are mentioned in the sale deed at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration and to pass denovo assessment order based on that. For this purpose, he also drew our attention to Section 155(15) of the Act. (G) We have heard both sides, and perused the materials on record. The reliance placed by the DR on Section 155(15) of the Act is misplaced. Section 155(15) of the Act comes into play if and when the valuation made by the DVO is revised in any appeal or revision or reference. In the present case before us, the valuation report of the DVO does not even exist, and therefore, there is no question of any possibility of the valuation report of DVO being revised in appeal or revision or reference. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in the assessment order that vide letter dated 14.03.2022 reference was made to DVO for valuation of property. However, the reply dated 18.02.2026 received by the assessee, to RTI query (placed at page 143 of the aforesaid paper book referred to in forgoing paragraph of this order) showed that in effect there was no reference made to the DVO. For the ease of reference the aforesaid reply dated 18.02.2026 is reproduced below: Order u/s 7(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005 The applicant has filed an applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee. The provisions of Section 50C(2) of the Act as well as proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act; mandate reference by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Officer when the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer failed to make reference to Valuation Officer, as mandated by the aforementioned provisions of law. In this regard, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Aditya NarainVerma (HUF) (supra). In this case, the request of the Departmental Representative that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for referring the case to Valuation Officer, was rejected. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: - "4.1 On the very perusal of the provisions laid down under section 50C of the Act reproduced hereinabove, we fully concur with the finding of the ld. CIT (Appeals) that when the assessee in the present case ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gauranginiben S. ShodhanIndl. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 356 (Guj). The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is reproduced below: "13. We are conscious that section 50C of the Act introduced in the statute by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1.4.2003 now provides for special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. The said section provides a deeming fiction under which consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of a capital asset being land or building or both can be replaced by the value adopted or assessed or accessible by stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer. Sub-section (2) of section 50C, however, permits the assessee to dispute such valuation adopted by the State Stamp Valuation Authority and in such a case, it is open for the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer. Present is not a case of this nature, as is clear from the assessment order in which the Assessing Officer has referred the reference to DVO. Even otherwise, we are informed that in the present case, sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.2012. We are, however, concerned with the period prior thereto. Clause (b) of section 55A is in two parts and permits a reference to DVO if the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset so claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage of the value of the asset so claimed or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do. Sub-clause(i) of clause (b) also for the same reasons recorded above, would have no bearing on the fair market value as on 1.4.1981. The Assessing Officer had not resorted to sub-clause(ii) of clause (b). In any case, clause (b) would apply where clause(a) does not apply since it starts with the expression "in any other case". In other words if assessee has relied upon a Registered Valuer's Report, Assessing Officer can proceed only under clause (a) and clause (b) would not be applicable. 16. In the present case, admittedly the assessee had relied on the estimate made by the Registered Valuer for the purpose of supporting its value of the asset. Any ....