Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased a property for Rs. 99,00,000, but the Stamp Duty Valuation Authorities valued it at Rs. 2,10,83,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition based on this higher valuation. The AO referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation. However, before receiving the DVO's report, the AO passed an assessment order making the addition. The DVO later submitted a report valuing the property at Rs. 1,14,34,000. The assessee requested rectification, but the AO did not act on it. The CIT(A) rejected the DVO's report and confirmed the AO's addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the DVO's report without providing an opportunity to the DVO to be heard and explain discrepancies. The Tribunal also noted that the AO is generally bound by the DVO's report when obtained. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Authority to decide the valuation issues, considering objections against the DVO's report and the presumptive value under Section 50C, and then compute the fair market value and relief.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the DVO's report without affording natural justice to the DVO and the assessee, and whether the AO is bound by the DVO's valuation report.
Sections Cited
155(15), 143(3), 56(2)(vii), 50C, 55A, 131, 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
This appeal is directed against order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-(NFAC) has erred (NFAC) has erred in rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without in rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without in rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without considering the detailed submissions made by the considering the detailed submissions made by the considering the detailed submissions made by the Appellant. Hence, the rejection of the DVO R Appellant. Hence, the rejection of the DVO Report on the eport on the grounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, grounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, grounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. unwarranted and uncalled for.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June, 2018 on the groun report dated 13th June, 2018 on the grounds of certain ds of certain anomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being anomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being anomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being mandatory to adopt the same. mandatory to adopt the same.
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for (NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for (NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for the deletions of the additions made by the Learned the deletions of the additions made by the Learned the deletions of the additions made by the Learned Assessi Assessing Officer in view of DVO's valuation report dated ng Officer in view of DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the 13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the 13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the additions were made subject to the valuation report of additions were made subject to the valuation report of additions were made subject to the valuation report of the DVO. the DVO. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-(NFAC) has erred in AC) has erred in disregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is disregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is disregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is coterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the coterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the coterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the same is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal same is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal same is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal before him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues before him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues before him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues that were not subje that were not subject matter of appeal before him. ct matter of appeal before him. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report (NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report (NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report without providing opportunities to the Department's DVO without providing opportunities to the Department's DVO without providing opportunities to the Department's DVO and the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CIT and the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CI and the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CI (A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in (A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in (A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in contravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable contravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable contravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable to quashed. to quashed. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in not (NFAC) has erred in not appreciating the Appellant's appreciating the Appellant's submission that the rectification of the assessment under submission that the rectification of the assessment under submission that the rectification of the assessment under Section 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect Section 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect Section 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect of the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as of the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as of the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as the additions were made subject to the adoption of the the additions were made subject to the adoption of the the additions were made subject to the adoption of the said DVO's valuation of the said four properties. said DVO's valuation of the said four properties. said DVO's valuation of the said four properties.
7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) erred in not calling for the rectification order from the erred in not calling for the rectification order from the erred in not calling for the rectification order from the Learned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report Learned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report Learned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report dated 13th June 2018 has been passed and the dated 13th June 2018 has been passed and t dated 13th June 2018 has been passed and t Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated 23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under 23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under 23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under Section 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the Section 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the Section 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the Assessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the Assessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the Assessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the CIT Appeal is against the provisions of law and in CIT Appeal is against the provisions of law an CIT Appeal is against the provisions of law an violation of the principles of natural justice; violation of the principles of natural justice; 8. Alternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Alternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Alternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various (Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various (Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various limitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property limitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property limitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property situate at CTS No.346 and 347, situat situate at CTS No.346 and 347, situate at Village e at Village Malvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District Malvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District Malvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District registered with the Sub registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance on 18th Registrar of Assurance on 18th December 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid December 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid December 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid property vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 property vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 property vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 at Rs. 1,14,34,000/ at Rs. 1,14,34,000/- as against the assessed market he assessed market value of Rs.2,10,82,000/ value of Rs.2,10,82,000/-. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid and/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid and/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid grounds of appeal
as and when the occasion demands. grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands.
10. All aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the All aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the All aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the alternative and without prejudice alternative and without prejudice to one another. another.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at return of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at return of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at Rs.1,53,28,600/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. During the scrutiny proceedings, the with. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer noted that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had purchased one immovable property deration, the assessee had purchased one immovable property deration, the assessee had purchased one immovable property against purchase consideration of Rs.99,00,000/ against purchase consideration of Rs.99,00,000/- but Stamp Duty but Stamp Duty Value Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/-. The Value Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/ Value Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/ Assessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to Assessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to Assessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to why the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on hy the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on hy the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on account of different between value determined by the stamp account of different between value determined by the stamp account of different between value determined by the stamp valuation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee valuation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee valuation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee objected to the adoption of the value determined by the Stamp the adoption of the value determined by the Stamp the adoption of the value determined by the Stamp value authority and requested for referring the matter fo authority and requested for referring the matter for valuation valuation by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section Valuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section Valuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section 56(2) r.w. section 50C of the Act. 56(2) r.w. section 50C of the Act. The ld AO accordingly referred the The ld AO accordingly referred the matter to the ld DVO. matter to the ld DVO. As the assessment was getting time barred getting time barred the Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer, without waiting the report of DVO, , without waiting the report of DVO, passed the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of Rs.1,11,83,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act adopting value of the adopting value of the property as per Stamp Value Authority. property as per Stamp Value Authority. The assessee had already assessee had already filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income against the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, the DVO against the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, t against the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, t issued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO issued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO issued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO estimated the fair market value of the pro the fair market value of the property as on 18.12.2014 at perty as on 18.12.2014 at Rs.1,14,34,000/-. A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO . A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO . A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO has been placed on Paper Book page 115 to 121. has been placed on Paper Book page 115 to 121. Pursuant to the Pursuant to the issuance of the report by the DVO, the assessee issuance of the report by the DVO, the assessee file filed a rectification application dated 20.01.2020 u application dated 20.01.2020 u/s 155(15) of the Act /s 155(15) of the Act before the AO. along along along with with with Form Form Form No. No. No. 26AS, 26AS, 26AS, evidencing evidencing evidencing tax tax tax payment payment payment of of of Rs.6,71,050/- on 28.03.2019 with reference to the on 28.03.2019 with reference to the on 28.03.2019 with reference to the difference determined between between the DVO and purchase transaction value. and purchase transaction value.
Though the assessee filed two reminders to the Though the assessee filed two reminders to the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer for carrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out carrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out carrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order by the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order by the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order dated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made dated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made dated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relev by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is ant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:
8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished 8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished 8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished the report of the DVO which was received after passing the the report of the DVO which was received after passing the the report of the DVO which was received after passing the assessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at assessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at assessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at Rs. 1,14,34,000/ ,000/- against the Stamp Valuation Authority's against the Stamp Valuation Authority's valuation at Rs.2,10,83,000/ valuation at Rs.2,10,83,000/- the appellant challenge both the the appellant challenge both the figures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the figures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the figures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the DVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his DVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his DVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his favour. However i favour. However it is noticed that the appellant has not taken t is noticed that the appellant has not taken alternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted alternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted alternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted and the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears and the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears and the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears that the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of that the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of that the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of the DVO is mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO s mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO s mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO is not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the is not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the is not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the report of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of report of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of report of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of the property at Rs. 7,216/ the property at Rs. 7,216/- per square meter as on 18.12.2014. In per square meter as on 18.12.2014. In his Annexure his Annexure-ll of the report, the DVO has taken 3 properties for ll of the report, the DVO has taken 3 properties for arriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that arriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that arriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that properties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate properties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate properties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/ ranging from Rs.1,799/-, Rs.3,846/- and Rs. 13,452/ and Rs. 13,452/-. The conduct of the DVO is un uct of the DVO is un-understandable, he should have taken understandable, he should have taken bigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of bigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of bigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of the DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the the DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the the DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the Stamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by Stamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by Stamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by A.O.at Rs. 1, 11,83,000/-.
Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee Book containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee Book containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the submitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the submitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the valuation report submitted by th valuation report submitted by the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. e DVO u/s 55A of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in accordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO accordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO accordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO report. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following report. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following report. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions in support of his decisions in support of his contention : a) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 a) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 a) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 (Allahabad) b) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) b) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) b) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) c) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar c) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar c) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar ITA No. 2374/Mum/2019 d) d) d) Jalan Jalan Jalan Chemical Chemical Chemical Industries Industries Industries (P.) (P.) (P.) Ltd. Ltd. Ltd. vs. vs. vs. ITO ITO ITO 43 43 43 taxmann.com 229 (Kolkata com 229 (Kolkata - Trib.) e) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer e) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer e) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer ITA No. 1821/Pun/2017 ITA No. 1821/Pun/2017 4. On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that DVO’s ’s report might be mandatory on the Assessing report might be mandatory on the Assessing Officer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there Officer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there Officer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there are glaring mistake are glaring mistakes or error in the report of the DVO. He or error in the report of the DVO. He accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) ) for giving opportunity of being heard of being heard to the DVO and explain the mistakes or the deficiencies explain the mistakes or the deficiencies or inconsistencies or inconsistencies appearing in the report of the DVO. appearing in the report of the DVO.
5. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record the relevant materials on record. In view of the objection of the ew of the objection of the assessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer assessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer assessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer referred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. referred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. referred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. As the report was not received till completion of the assessment As the report was not received till completion of the assessment As the report was not received till completion of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing O proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of fficer made the addition on the basis of the stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred the stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred the stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred appeal against the said assessment order which was pending before appeal against the said assessment order which was pending before appeal against the said assessment order which was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal the Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal the Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee CIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee CIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee filed a copy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the copy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the copy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the rectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee rectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee rectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee also filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed also filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed also filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed glaring mistakes in the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the in the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the in the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the same whereas the Assessing Officer did not act Assessing Officer did not act upon the rectification application rectification application, probably in view of the fact that the fact that issue was already decided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for decided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for decided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and assessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and assessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and submitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the submitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the submitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the Assessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the Assessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the Assessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the property as determined by the DVO property as determined by the DVO. In support thereof the Ld. n support thereof the Ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the Bhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the Bhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the provisions of section 50C(2)(b) of the Act provisions of section 50C(2)(b) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court he Hon’ble High Court relying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 relying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 relying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 observed that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs observed that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs observed that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs report. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced report. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced report. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under : “10. The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr.
10. The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr.
The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr. H. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C. H. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C. H. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C.
In this section, the provisions of the Wealth In this section, the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act are applicable. tax Act are applicable. This hon'ble court observed that (page 308) : This hon'ble court observed that (page 308) : "A reading of the sub "A reading of the sub-section shows that the Wealth-tax Officer has tax Officer has no option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity no option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity no option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the with the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the with the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the valuation of the asset in question is concerned. This is als valuation of the asset in question is concerned. This is als valuation of the asset in question is concerned. This is also the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of taken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of taken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of India [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All)." India [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All)."
In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality 11. In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality 11. In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that generally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. ally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. ally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. report then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to report then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to report then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is hereby upheld with the reasons mentioned therein. hereby upheld with the reasons mentioned therein.” 5.1 Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai Thesia (supra), where wherein also the Hon’ble High Court also the Hon’ble High Court held that once the reference made u/s 50C of the Act the reference made u/s 50C of the Act is made to the Valuation to the Valuation Officer for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is er for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is er for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by him. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the Dinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the Dinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) Tribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) Tribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra) and Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra). In case of Jalan n case of Jalan Chemical(supra,) the Tribunal has held that once the Tribunal has held that once the Tribunal has held that once reference has been made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in been made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in been made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in conformity to the estimate given by the conformity to the estimate given by the DVO. In the case Shri Anil . In the case Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report of the DVO is binding of the DVO is binding on the AO unless the assessee shows suc the AO unless the assessee shows such glaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel glaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel glaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel referred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however referred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however referred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however the Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention the Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention the Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is as under:
“5. In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct.
In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct.
5. In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct. Report of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub Report of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub Report of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub-section (3) of section 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the section 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the section 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the provisions contained in sub provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub- section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has received or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has received or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar in CIT v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar [2012] 349 ITR 210/[2013] 349 ITR 210/[2013] 213 Taxman 52/30 taxmann.com 293 213 Taxman 52/30 taxmann.com 293 in which case also the in which case also the similar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal similar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal similar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal clear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report clear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report clear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report then the same is binding'. It is thus cle then the same is binding'. It is thus clear that the report of the DVO ar that the report of the DVO is binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring is binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring is binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring mistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by mistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by mistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A), in principle, on this score. the ld. CIT(A), in principle, on this score.
6. Now, I turn to the specific objections of the ass 6. Now, I turn to the specific objections of the assessee against the essee against the report of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO report of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO report of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO considered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/ considered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/ considered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/-, Rs. 15614/- and Rs. 15714/- per square metre respectively, but per square metre respectively, but determined the fair market value of the proper determined the fair market value of the property at Rs. 18,808/ ty at Rs. 18,808/- p.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself p.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself p.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself to the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair to the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair to the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair market value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed market value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed market value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed by the ld. DR. by the ld. DR.
I do not find a 7. I do not find any substance in the argument of the ld. AR. It is ny substance in the argument of the ld. AR. It is apparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the apparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the apparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the paper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 paper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 paper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 and 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee and 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee and 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee sold its property on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the perty on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the perty on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the fair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, fair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, fair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, location, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was location, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was location, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was taken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same taken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same taken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same vide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair ide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair ide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair market value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines market value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines market value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines issued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my issued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my issued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my considered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only considered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only considered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only be a starting point for determining the fair market value of any property, starting point for determining the fair market value of any property, starting point for determining the fair market value of any property, which need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts which need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts which need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the and circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the and circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the relevant factors, such as, time lag, location, relevant factors, such as, time lag, location, shape and size of the shape and size of the property and future potential etc. need to be considered before property and future potential etc. need to be considered before property and future potential etc. need to be considered before determining the fair market value of the property as on the date of determining the fair market value of the property as on the date of determining the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the sale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the sale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am satisfied that the instant case, I am satisfied that the DVO was correct in determining DVO was correct in determining fair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into fair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into fair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into account the cumulative effect of all the germane factors. account the cumulative effect of all the germane factors. account the cumulative effect of all the germane factors.
The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee 8. The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee 8. The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee was small in size and no was small in size and not in proper shape and hence reduction t in proper shape and hence reduction should have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this should have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this should have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair Tribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair Tribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair market value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy market value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy market value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy sale. This objec sale. This objection raised by assessee has also been dealt with by tion raised by assessee has also been dealt with by the DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he the DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he the DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he estimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, estimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, estimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, size and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not size and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not size and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not stand any further legal scrutiny. and any further legal scrutiny.
Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in 9. Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in 9. Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in respect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the respect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the respect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the property should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, property should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, property should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, this factor has not been co this factor has not been correctly projected by the assessee in as rrectly projected by the assessee in as much as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the much as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the much as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the property by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is property by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is property by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is reference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. reference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. reference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. Since no litigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be litigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be litigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be no relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The no relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The no relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The DVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while DVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while DVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while dealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no dealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no dealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no force in this contention as well, which is hereby repelled. this contention as well, which is hereby repelled.” 5.2 In view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is In view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is In view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is settled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation settled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation settled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation adopted by the DVO and he was required to pass the order in adopted by the DVO and he was required to pass adopted by the DVO and he was required to pass conformity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. formity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. formity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in CIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in CIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in view of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/- to view of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/ view of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/ Rs.13,452/-. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have . According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have . According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have taken a bigger sample for bigger sample for estimating rate. In our opinion, this being In our opinion, this being one of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) one of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) one of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the said report. has rejected the said report. But we do not agree with the finding of e do not agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by the Stamp Duty the Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by th the Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by th Authorities for for sustaining sustaining the the addition addition without without providing providing opportunity of being heard to the DVO opportunity of being heard to the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A) . The Ld. CIT(A), having power of the enhancement power of the enhancement of addition, if he was not satisfied with if he was not satisfied with the report of the DVO he should have provided opportunity of being the report of the DVO he should have provided opportunit the report of the DVO he should have provided opportunit heard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection, he heard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection heard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection could have decided the valuation of the property. have decided the valuation of the property. We find that We find that the Co-ordinate Bench decision in case of ordinate Bench decision in case of Suresh C. Mehta vs. Suresh C. Mehta vs. ITO (2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation (2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation (2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation report is not binding upon appellate authorities. Furthern the report is not binding upon appellate authorities. report is not binding upon appellate authorities. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s Jagannathan Sailaja Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta vs. ITO [2019] 49 ITCD 121 (MAD) held 19] 49 ITCD 121 (MAD) held that ld. CIT(A) is duty that ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO bound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO bound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO report. The relevant finding of The relevant finding of Hon’ble Madras High Court (supra) is Madras High Court (supra) is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: 15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authori 15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authority and the 15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authori Assessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also Assessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also Assessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also vide Section 131 Section 131 of the Act and, therefore, the Valuation of the Act and, therefore, the Valuation Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumption under Section 50C of the Act about the Fair presumption under of the Act about the Fair Market Value has to be treated as an evidence or Market Value has to be treated as an evidence or a legal Market Value has to be treated as an evidence or presumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in presumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in presumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in accordance with law. accordance with law.
A bare reading of Scheme of Section 50C of the Act would 16. A bare reading of Scheme of of the Act would show that Assessee can object to presumptive value as per show that Assessee can object to presumptive value as per Section 50C (1) and, therefore, it is only after hearing the and, therefore, it is only after hearing the objections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital objections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital objections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by Asset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by the Asset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by authorities. authorities. authorities. The The The Assessee Assessee Assessee cannot cannot cannot be be be denied denied denied an an an opportunity opportunity opportunity to to to raise raise raise his his his objections objections objections even even even against against against the the the presumptive Fair Market Value under Section 50C (1) presumptive Fair Market Value under Section 50C (1) of the Act or Report of DVO under 50C (2) of the Act and the Assessing or Report of DVO under of the Act and the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authorities, whose Authority or the Appellate Authorities, whose Authority or the Appellate Authorities, whose powers are co-extensive wi extensive with those of the Assessing Authority, th those of the Assessing Authority, cannot refuse to meet those objections point by point. cannot refuse to meet those objections point by point. cannot refuse to meet those objections point by point.
The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of 17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of 17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of assessment in the Income Tax Act has it at the root the assessment in the has it at the root the principles of natural justice and the same has not been denied nciples of natural justice and the same has not been denied nciples of natural justice and the same has not been denied by presumptive provisions, such as Section 50C by presumptive provisions, such as of the Act and several other provisions in the scheme of the Act. several other provisions in the scheme of the Act.
In the present facts not 18. In the present facts noted above, we are of the opinion that ed above, we are of the opinion that CIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, CIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, CIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, could either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or could either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or could either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing with the said objections in an appropriate and detailed d objections in an appropriate and detailed d objections in an appropriate and detailed manner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been manner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been manner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been undertaken by him in the present case. undertaken by him in the present case.
Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to 19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to 19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority even at this stage, even though the Assessing Authority even at t his stage, even though belatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said belatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said belatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said purpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the purpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the purpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned orders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned orders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumptive value under Section 50C of the Act and then the presumptive value under of the Act and then compute 'Fair Market Value' under Section 48 compute 'Fair Market Value' under Section 48 of the Act and the relief under Section 54F of the Act. the Act and the relief under of the Act.
In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law 20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law 20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law framed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and framed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and framed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Revenue.
Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the 21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the 21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the evidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority evidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority evidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority has the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of has the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of has the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of Section 131 of the Act b of the Act by way of enforcing the attendance of y way of enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company or any person, including any officer of a banking company or any person, including any officer of a banking company or examining him on oath, production of documents, discovery examining him on oath, production of documents, discovery examining him on oath, production of documents, discovery and inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing and inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing and inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing with the aforesaid piece of evidence, namely, Departmental with the aforesaid piece of evidence, name ly, Departmental Valuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to Valuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to Valuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to controvert the presumptive value under Section 50C controvert the presumptive value under Section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers the Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers the Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers conferred upon him. ferred upon him.
5.3 In the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have In the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have In the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have been pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. Therefore, in been pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. been pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriat substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back e to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an opportunity of being opportunity of being heard to the Ld. DVO on the mistake observed on the mistake observed by the ld CIT(A) and seek and seek a revised report if required so and then a revised report if required so and then decide the issue after decide the issue after providing adequate opportunity of being adequate opportunity of being heard, both to the assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The the assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The the assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.