What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that no addition was made by the AO in the assessment year under appeal based on this reference. Therefore, the appeal was considered premature.

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the AO's reference to the Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value of a capital asset converted to stock-in-trade. The assessee argued this reference was invalid.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal against a reference to the Valuation Officer is maintainable when no addition has been made in the relevant assessment year.

Nanasaheb Bhagwan Sasar vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sasar

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Pune on 28-11-2017 in relation to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

The assessee has challenged the decision taken by the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making a reference to the Valuation Officer. The ld. AR contended that the assessee converted his capital asset into stock-in-trade in the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, which was sold in a later year. He

2 ITA No.319/PUN/2018 Nanasaheb B. Sasar

submitted that the AO made reference to the DVO for

determining the fair market value of the asset on the date of

such conversion. It was submitted that such a reference was

invalid.

We have heard both the sides and gone through the

relevant material on record. It is noted from the assessment

order and that no addition has been made on this score. This

position was even admitted by the ld. AR as well, who stated

that no addition was made by the AO in the year under

consideration. Since the issue in appeal does not arise from

the order passed by the AO, in our considered opinion, this

appeal is premature. The assessee is at liberty to challenge the

reference to the DVO in the year in which such valuation has

been considered for the purpose of making addition, if any.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09th January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 09th January, 2019 सतीश

3 ITA No.319/PUN/2018 Nanasaheb B. Sasar

आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-3, Pune The Pr.CIT-2, Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय 5. अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड% फाईल / Guard file. // True copy //

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.319/PUN/2018 Nanasaheb B. Sasar

Date 1. Draft dictated on 09-01-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 09-01-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

NANASAHEB BHAGWAN SASAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments