Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 arises against the DCIT, Circle International Taxation, Kochi’s assessment in DIN & Order No. ITBA/ AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1042314936(1) dated 31.03.2022 in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that both the lower authorities have added the long terms capital gain amounting to Rs,128,67,944/- in assessee’s hands, vide assessment herein dated 31.03.2022 framed as per the Dispute Resolution Panel “DRP” directions dated 08.02.2022. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the sole substantial issue before us is that of Smt.Saramma Mathew determination of cost of acquisition of the assessee’s capital asset sold/transferred in the relevant previous year. Her case before us is that not only there was no reference made to the Valuation Officer u/s. 55A of the Act but also her Valuation Report filed in the course of the “objection proceedings” before the “DRP” has not been considered. The Revenue could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the learned lower authorities have not made any reference to the Valuation Officer u/s. 55A of the Act. Mr. Das sought to highlight the fact that there was no such claim or objection raised at the assessee’s behest in the lower proceedings. The Revenue’s technical objection already stands rejected in Sunil K. Aggarwal v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 83 (Cal) wherein their lordships hold such a reference as mandatory even if there is no objection raised to this effect in assessment proceedings.
Learned CIT-DR seeks to distinguish the above case law that the same dealt with the issue of section 50C only whereas the addition before us is u/s. 55A of the Act.
This Revenue’s technical objection is found to be devoid of merits once the legislature has itself not only adopted the “Valuation Officer” as per section 2(r) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, both in section 50C(2)(b) Explanation as well as section 55A(b) Explanation but also the statutory expression is found to be identically worded “may refer” (emphasis supplied).
We accordingly restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground herein back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.