TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (DRP) order dated 12.12.2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee are reproduced as under: "GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 The expenditure incurred on improvements to the Flat No. 140, Mall Road, Delhi in the Financial Years 1986-87 and 1994-95 of Rs. 5,17,041/- and Rs. 5,44,565/- respectively as estimated by an Approved and Registered Valuer of the Income Tax Department as per CPWD rates which have NOT been allowed as a cost of improvement of the respective years without appreciating the facts. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 Leave to amend or add grounds - The Appellant c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000 Less: Cost of acquisition 1986-87 Cost of Acquisition 1,66,600 140 12,18,560 1986-87 Cost of Improvement 5,17,041 140 37,81,785 1994-95 Cost of Improvement 5,44,565 259 21,53,029 2010-11 Stamp Duty Charges - Gift Deed 1,42,440 711 2,05,145 2010-11 Stamp Duty Charges - Conveyance Deed 14,420 711 20,768 Long Term Capital Loss (13,79,287) 3.2 In the absence of any documentary evidences to support the cost of improvement undertaken by the previous owner, the AO adopted the cost of acquisition at Rs. 166600/- and computed capital gain at Rs. 4,78,81,440/-. Vide the draft assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), which was not done. Ld. AR has further placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Ms. Lalita Trehan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Intl. Tax in ITA No.- 3352/Del/2023 dated 23.10.2024 in support of his contention that the AO is bound to accept the report of registered valuer if reference to DVO has not been made u/s. 55A of the Act. 4.1 On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that the Valuation Report was made in 2014 and it does not specify as to how the value of construction / improvement undertaken in F.Y. 1986-87 and 1994-95 has been determined by the valuer. In the absence of any supporting documentary evidence regarding incurring of these expenses as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as 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, and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clauses (ha) and (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (3A) and (4) of section 23, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pment charges incurred by the assessee in FY 2003-04 but did not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for its valuation. Similarly, the Id. DRP also did not conduct any enquiry as provided u/s. 144(7)(a) of the Act or directed the AO u/s. 144(7)(b) of the Act to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for valuation of the property sold during the year in which the quantum of capital gains on account of valuation of the land has been disputed. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not right in discarding the report of the registered valuer regarding the determination of the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.2001 without making a ref....