BIMLA DEVI AGRAWAL,KOLKATA V. A.C.I.T./D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1690/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Bimla Devi Agrawal against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which was based on a valuation report from the DVO. The primary contention was regarding the validity of the assessment order, which the appellant argued was passed beyond the statutory time limit. The Assessing Officer had referred the matter to the DVO for a valuation of properties sold by the assessee, which resulted in a significantly higher valuation than declared by the assessee. The Tribunal examined the procedural aspects of the assessment, including the timing of the DVO's report and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on statutory deadlines.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782005 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Smt. Rashidaben Taher Morawala vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1353/AHD/2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition; Period of limitation; Capital Gains; Valuation report
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 154; 56; 69; 139; 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal Vs. Assessing Officer, Circle-34, Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACYPA5247R Appearances: Assessee represented by : J.M. Thard, AR. Department represented by : Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT(DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 06-August-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 31-October-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 28.06.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.04.2021. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in dismissing the Ground No.1 taken before him as \"FOR that the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. Act on 06.04.2021, which is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act, is void and bad-in-law\". 2. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in not discussing/considering the submission made before him in respect of violation of limitation by the Ld. A.O. in passing the assessment order on 06.04.2021 which was to be passed by 31.12.2019. 3. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring and/or not considering the provisions of sec. 155(15). 4. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in stating that Ld. A.O. get extension due to COVID pandemic for which Govt. of India declared lockdown from 24.03.2020 whereas appellant requested to the Ld. A.O. on 30.08.2019 to refer the matter to DVO and the Ld. A.O. referred to DVO vide his letter dtd.07.11.2019 and Ld. A.O. received the valuation report dtd. 19.12.2019 from Valuation Officer on 05.02.2020 much before the lockdown due to COVID Pandemic. 5. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the estimated deemed value of Rs.70,19,310/- suggested by DVO by stating that the appellant got substantial relief from value of Stamp Duty Valuation of Rs.2,40,67,000/- 6. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the deemed value of the sold property as per report of Valuation Officer in a summary manner because the estimation of deemed value by DVO was not property specific. 7. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring / not considering /discussing the submission made before him in respect of deemed value of the sold property. 8. FOR that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was wrong and unjustified in not considering and/or discussing the judicial decisions cited and discussed in the submission made before him. 9. FOR that the appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify any of the grounds and/or take additional grounds before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 showing total income of ₹26,91,170/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') to verify the Capital gains/loss on sale of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. property. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO has stated that the assessee objected to the value determined by the stamp duty valuation officer and the matter was referred to the DVO vide dated 07.11.2019. In response thereof, the Asst. Valuation Officer, Allahabad submitted his report vide letter dated 19.12.2019 and valued all the properties under consideration at ₹70,19,310/- as against ₹29,97,000/- declared by the assessee. The Ld. AO has also stated in the assessment order that the Valuation Report was forwarded to the assessee along with a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 16.03.2021 to show cause as to why the fair market value of the said seven shops at 414A, Kasba-Mounath, Mouja Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janspad, Uttar Pradesh (Roof area) Registry No.3650, 3651, 4114, 4113, 6129, 6226 & 6227 should not be taken at ₹70,19,310/- as against ₹29,97,000/- declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Ld. AO further stated that as there was no compliance by the assessee, the value of the properties as per the AVO report i.e. ₹70,19,310/- was adopted and he further reduced cost of acquisition as claimed in ITR ₹6,10,810/- and arrived at LTCG at ₹64,08,500/-. The Ld. AO completed the assessment by computing capital gains at ₹64,08,500/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹67,13,478/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the written submission filed and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was argued by the Ld. AR in the course of appeal Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. before us that the return was filed showing capital gains and the assessee had objected to the valuation adopted for the purpose of stamp duty. The Ld. AO referred the matter to the DVO under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Act while the matter should have been referred u/s 50C(2) of the Act. It was argued that sub-rule (2A) of section 142 relates to acquisition of property while sub-section (2) of section 50C of the Act refers to the sale consideration. The initial reference was wrong for AY 2016-17 and the Ld. AO had applied the wrong provision, it was argued by the Ld. AR. The assessee relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rashidaben Taher Morawala vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1353/AHD/2019, order dated 19.10.2022. It was stated that the assessment order has been made on 06.04.2021, the reference to the DVO was made on 07.11.2019 and, therefore, the proceedings were barred by limitation on 31.12.2019 as the report of the AVO had been received on 19.12.2019. A reference of the Ld. AR was invited to the provision of section 142A of the Act and it was conveyed that under sub-section (2) of section 50C of the Act, the assessee can ask for the valuation. The assessee relied upon the order being barred by limitation by further referring to the provisions of sub- section (15) of section 155 of the Act. As regards the merits of the case, it was argued that the DVO valued on the area basis and circle rate was applied; the valuation report dated 19.12.2019 of AVO being placed from pages 23 to 30 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee had sold the roof rights and had applied the rate of municipal corporation and it was argued that the value adopted by the assessee should have been adopted. The terrace portion was sold to seven persons and the undivided interest in the land was also must have been sold. It was not known to the Ld. AR whether the purchase was only of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. the FAR. The purchase was for construction purposes, as is mentioned in the deed. It was conveyed to the assessee that as per the calculation, the proceedings were to be barred by 03.07.2020. It was also conveyed to the assessee that it is mentioned in the valuation report of the AVO that Sri Sushil Agarwal, being the assessee’s representative, was present at the time of inspection of the property which was inspected on 17.12.2019 by the AVO. The assessee had filed copy of registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Bimla Devi Agarwal, the Shapath Patra dated 18.12.2018, copy of DM circle rate and copy of sketch plan. The Ld. AVO had called for the details of outgoings such as property tax, insurance, rent etc., photographs of properties and the registered valuer’s report for which notices were sent on 11.11.2019 and the notice for inspection of the property was sent on 13.12.2019 as is mentioned in the report of the AVO. The land is free hold and the fair market value of the property as per para 9.1 of the valuation report has been worked out on the basis of the DM circle rate suitably modified as per the CBDT’s guidelines on valuation of immovable properties and the seven properties were valued for the following amount as per the details given below: Sl. No. Date of Valuation Property Declared by the Assessee (full value of property Excluding stamp duty) Estimated by this Office (full value of property Excluding stamp duty 1 30.05.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath, Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad. Uttar Pradesh (Roof arca) Registry no- 3650 6,90,000/- 19,24,620/- 2 30.05.2016 414A. Kasba-Mounath, Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no-3651 2,30,000/- 6,52,440/- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. 3 18.06.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath, Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no- 4114 2,00,000/- 552,600/- 4 18.06.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath, Mouza-Munsinath. Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no-4113 1,60,000/- 4,91,040/- 5 09.09.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath, Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no-6129 11,22,000/- 22,10,610/- 6 06.09.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath, Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh, Registry no 6126 3,55,000/- 7,26,000/- 7 06.09.2016 414A, Kasba-Mounath Mouza-Munsinath, Tehsil-Sadar Janpad, Uttar Pradesh. Registry no-6127 2,40,000/- 4,62,000/- 6. The Ld. AR, on a query in this regard, stated that sending back the issue to the AVO for valuation will not serve any purpose as the property may not be in the same shape today. The assessee subsequently filed a written submission in this regard which is reproduced as under: “A submission was made today vide Acknowledgement No. 199898491230823 on the issue of quantum addition, but submission in respect of legal and technical ground could not be made inadvertently. I am therefore making the submission in respect of Ground No.1 which is as under. 1. FOR that the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 06.04.2021, which is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act, is void and bad-in- law As per sec. 153(1) the assessment order is to be passed before expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The present assessment year is 2017-18 and accordingly the assessment order should have been passed by 31.12.2019 but the assessment order was passed on 06.04.2021. In this case the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. A.O. referred the matter to the Valuation Officer vide letter dtd.07.11.2019 and the Assistant Valuation Officer, Allahabad submitted his report dtd.19.12.2019. From the copy of the valuation report it is seen that the said valuation report was received by the Ld. A.O. on 05.02.2020. However the assessment order should have been passed by 31.12.2019 and the assessment order should have been revised as per provisions of sub-sec (15) of sec. 155. Sub-sec (15) of sec. 155 is specifically for the case of capital gain arising from the transfer of capital asset being land or building or both by taking full value of consideration to be the value adopted or assessed by the authority of a Statement Government for the purpose of stamp duty in accordance with sub-sec (1) of sec.50C and consequently such value can be revised by applying to sub-sec (15) of sec. 155. Therefore the assessment order passed on 06.04.2021 by the Ld. A.O. is invalid. Since it is not passed within the time limit as prescribed u/s.153(1) therefore order is liable to be cancelled. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Smt. Rashidaben Taher Morawala-Vs- DCIT in ITA No.1353/Ahd/2019 vide order dtd.19.10.2022. Copy of said order is enclosed for your perusal. It is therefore humbly requested that since order is clearly barred by limitation, it should be quashed.” 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be confirmed. 8. We have considered the matter, gone through the details filed and heard the rival submissions. As regards Ground nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the appeal relating to the assessment order being barred by limitation prescribed u/s 155 of the Act it would be relevant to refer to the sequence of the events as under: 22.07.2017 Income Tax Return filed. 29.08.2018 Notice u/s.143(2) issued. 15.05.2019 Notice u/s. 142(1) issued. 22.08.2019 Notice u/s.142(1) issued. 28.08.2019 Reply letter by Assessee in response to notice dtd.22.08.2019 objected to Valuation of Stamp Duty Authority and requested A.O. to refer matter to Valuation Officer. 07.11.2019 A.O. refers matter to Valuation Officer Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. 19.12.2019 Valuation report by Valuation Officer. 05.02.2020 Valuation Report received by A.O. 08.06.2020 Letter by A.O. to Assessee - at the end A.O. states \"matter is getting time barred on 03.07.2020\". 15.06.2020 Received Report of DVO in email. 19.06.2020 Reply letter in response to AO's letter dtd.08.06.2020. 06.04.2021 Assessment order passed. 9. The reference to the valuation itself being estimation of value assessed by the valuation officer is to be made as per the provision of sub-section (2) of section 142A of the Act and sub-section (3) refers to the Valuation Officer having all the power that he has u/s 38A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957; sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 142A refer to the Valuation Officer for estimation of the property and submit the report and sub-section (7) mandates the Ld. AO to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard, take into account such report and make the assessment or reassessment. The relevant propositions are reproduced as under: “Estimation of value of assets by Valuation Officer. 142A. (1) The Assessing Officer may, for the purposes of assessment or reassessment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him. (2) The Assessing Officer may make a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. (3) The Valuation Officer, on a reference made under sub-section (1), shall, for the purpose of estimating the value of the asset, property or investment, have all the powers that he has under section 38A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). (4) The Valuation Officer shall, estimate the value of the asset, property or investment after taking into account such evidence as the assessee may Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. produce and any other evidence in his possession gathered, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (5) The Valuation Officer may estimate the value of the asset, property or investment to the best of his judgment, if the assessee does not co-operate or comply with his directions. (6) The Valuation Officer shall send a copy of the report of the estimate made under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, to the Assessing Officer and the assessee, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which a reference is made under sub-section (1). (7) The Assessing Officer may, on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making the assessment or reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, \"Valuation Officer\" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 10. The Ld. AR contends that the reference was made under sub- section (2A) of section 142. However, the same refers to the valuation of inventory by the Cost Accountant determined by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and there is no specific mention of the section under which the valuation was made by the Ld. AO in the assessment order so as to hold that the reference was made u/s 142(2A) and not under section 142A of the Act. The power to refer any property for the purpose of assessment or reassessment to the Valuation Officer who estimates the value including the fair market value of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of the report to him has been granted to the Assessing Officer vide section 142A(1) of the Act with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972 as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 and subsequently amended. Since the assessment year is AY 2017-18, the provision as amended with effect from 01.10.2014 are applicable for the purpose of limitation u/s 153 of the Act. A reference needs to be made to the provision of sub-section (1) of section 153 of the Act read with Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. clause (v) of Explanation (1) to section 153 of the Act thereof, which is reproduced as under: “153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable: Provided that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2018, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words \"twenty-one months\", the words \"eighteen months\" had been substituted: Provided further that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on— (i) the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words \"twenty-one months\", the words \"twelve months\" had been substituted; (ii) the 1st day of April, 2020, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words \"twenty-one months\", the words \"eighteen months\" had been substituted: Provided also that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on 6[***] the 1st day of April, 2021, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words \"twenty- one months\", the words \"nine months\" had been substituted: 7[Provided also that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2022, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words \"twenty- one months\", the words \"twelve months\" had been substituted.] (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a return under sub-section (8A) of section 139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of 8[twelve] months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished. 9[(1B) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where a return is furnished in consequence of an order under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— . . (v) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer . . . shall be excluded: . . Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), 39[(1A),] (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:” 11. Since the reference was made to the AVO on 07.11.2019, the valuation report dated 19.12.2019 was received on 05.02.2020 by the Ld. AO (the report being dated 19.12.2019), therefore, the period from 07.11.2019 to 05.02.2020 has to be excluded, being the period/date from which the reference to the DVO was made and the date on which the report of the DVO was received as clause (v) of Explanation (1) to section 153 of the Act. If the period is excluded, the assessment which was otherwise barred by limitation on 31.12.2019, got extended to the period during which COVID pandemic was prevailing and all limitations were extended by virtue of TOLA and subsequent order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for all the limitation purposes on account of the COVID- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 12 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. 19 pandemic. Therefore, the assessment order passed on 06.04.2021 is not barred by any limitation as the duration from 07.11.2019 to 05.02.2020, which works out to 90 days, has to excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. 12. As per the Proviso below the Explanation where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period the period of limitation referred to sub-section (1), (1A), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment/reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than 60 days, the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. The period of limitation was extended from 23.03.2020 to 31.03.2022 therefore, the order passed on 06.04.2021 was not barred by any limitation and is a valid order. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has addressed the issue of limitation as per para 5.2 which is reproduced as under: “5.2 I have gone through the assessment order passed on 06.04.2021 and the submissions of the appellant. It is to note that when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to DVO, the assessment gets extension. In the said case, subsequently, due to COVID pandemic, all the time barring assessments got extended upto 28.02.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order dated 10.01.2022. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the assessment got barred by limitation is inappropriate. Hence, Ground No.1 is dismissed.” 13. Considering the totality of facts as enumerated above and the facts of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and hence, Ground nos. 1, 2 and 4 are dismissed. 14. As regards Ground no. 3 the provisions of sub-section (15) of section 155 of the Act are as under: “Other amendments. 155. (15) Where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is computed Printed from counselvise.com Page | 13 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. by taking the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer to be the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 50C, and subsequently such value is revised in any appeal or revision or reference referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of that section, the Assessing Officer shall amend the order of assessment so as to compute the capital gain by taking the full value of the consideration to be the value as so revised in such appeal or revision or reference; and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, and the period of four years shall be reckoned from the end of the previous year in which the order revising the value was passed in that appeal or revision or reference.” 15. Thus, this provision refers to the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer to be the value adopted or assessed and subsequently such value is revised in any appeal or revision or reference then the limitation as provided therein shall apply. The Ld. AR is misconstruing the reference to the DVO as reference referred to in this sub-section which is modification of the value in any appeal or revision or reference i.e. in the course of any appeal proceeding. The reference is made for the purpose of valuation to the DVO and not to any appellate forum, therefore, the provision of sub-section (15) of section 155 of the Act are not applicable and this ground of appeal is also dismissed. 16. Ground nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 relate to the value being adopted as per the valuation report of the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A) has given his finding as per paragraphs 6, reproduced under: “6.2 The addition made by the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the appellant have been perused. It is seen from the assessment order that the value of the seven shops as mentioned in the assessment order as per Stamp Duty was Rs.2,40,67,000/-. The AO objected for the said valuation of stamp duty and requested to refer to matter to Valuation Officer (DVO). The AO accordingly made a reference to the DVO vide his letter dated 07.11.2019 for valuing the seven properties. The AVO vide his report dated 19.12.2019 valued the seven properties at Rs.70,19,310/- as against the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 14 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. Stamp Valuation of Rs.2,40,67,000/-. The AO accordingly, accepted the AVO value and completed the assessment by computing LTCG at Rs.64,08,500/-. The contention of the appellant that the Assistant Valuation Officer has estimated on the rate of area and the value has not been estimated as per property specific is wrong and mistaken. The issue of determination of 'Fair Market Value' is a finding of a fact and the report of the AVO is an opinion in arriving at this fact. The report of the AVO is an expert opinion and cannot be disagreed. It is seen from the assessment order that the Stamp Duty Valuation for the seven properties was Rs.2,40,67,000/- and on referring matter to Valuation Officer on the request of the appellant, got substantial relief. 6.2.1 With regard to giving proper opportunity of hearing, it is seen from the assessment order that the AO issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act for appellant's comments/objections on the Valuation made by the AVO. However, there was no compliance by the appellant to the said notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the AO. 6.2.2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the LTCG computed by the AO is upheld and ground Nos.2 and 3 are dismissed.” 17. Further, the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rashidaben Taher Morawala (supra). In this respect, it is relevant to refer to the order of the Coordinate Bench which is reproduced as under: “6. Heard rival parties and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Book and Case Laws cited by the assessee counsel. Section 142A of the I.T. Act titled as 'Estimate by Valuation Officer in certain cases'. This section prescribes that for the purpose for making an assessment, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in sections 69, 69A, 69B are required to be made, the A.O. may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to A.O. Thus the scope of section 142A is limited in its span only to determine the value of investment in respect of certain assets, such as, bullion, jewellery, valuable articles etc. In this section as well there is no power vest with A.O. to seek the help of Valuation Officer in respect of determination of capital gain prescribed under section 48 of the Act. {emphasis supplied} 6.1. Similarly Section 50C of the Act, is titled as 'Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases'. Meaning thereby this section is not Printed from counselvise.com Page | 15 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. applicable to each and every case of sale but this is to be applied in respect of those sales instances where consideration received is less than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer. In that situation, for the purpose of section 48 computation of capital gain, value so adopted by the stamp valuation authority be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received as a result of such transfer. Meaning thereby the substitution of full value of consideration is possible, if the disclosed consideration is less than the value determined for payment of stamp duty. It had also been prescribed that where the assessee claims that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeds their fair market value or the value so adopted by the stamp valuation authority is not decided by any other Court or High Court, then the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer under section 55A. Therefore the conclusion is that the Act has prescribed that a reference under section 55A can be made for a limited purpose as prescribed under section 50C. {emphasis supplied}. 6.2. It is seen from records and the Paper Books filed in the present case, the Assessing Officer referred the transaction to the Valuation Officer, Sholapur under section 142A on 09.11.2017 to ascertain the Fair Market Value as on the date of sale. The Valuation Officer determined the value of the property at Rs. 1,80,39,000/- vide his report dated 14.08.2018. Based on the above report, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 28.09.2018 which is claimed by the assessee as barred by limitation u/s. 153(1) of the Act. The assessee’s contention that the Assessing Officer ought to have passed the assessment order under 153(1) on or before 31.12.2017 and then invoking subsection (15) of Section 155 and amend the assessment order within four years thereafter, is found to be justifiable. 6.3. In this connection, sub-section (15) of Section 155 is reproduced as follows: (15)- where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is computed by taking the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer to be the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 50C, and subsequently such value is revised in any appeal or revision or reference referred to in clause (b) of subsection (2) of that section, the Assessing Officer shall amend the order of assessment so as to compute the capital gain by taking the full value of the consideration to be the value as so revised in such appeal or revision Printed from counselvise.com Page | 16 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. or reference; and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, and the period of four years shall be reckoned from the end of the previous year in which the order revising the value was passed in that appeal or revision or reference. ] 6.4. Reading of the above provisions makes it very clear that the Assessing Officer is necessarily to pass the assessment order within the time limit as prescribed under section 153(1) of the Act which is in this case namely 31.12.2017. However the Assessing Officer has wrongly referred the valuation of the immovable property under section 142A of the Act which is not provided under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However after receipt of the Valuation Report from the DVO, the A.O. passed the assessment order on 28.09.2008 which is clearly barred by limitation which is not sustainable in law. Therefore the assessment order is hereby invalid in law. Thus the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. As the entire assessment order itself is quashed, the second ground raised by the assessee does not require any adjudication by us. {emphasis supplied} 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed.” 18. We have gone through the order. However, the coordinate bench has not appreciated the provisions of law applicable for A.Y. 2017-18 in view of the amendment w.e.f. 01.10.2014. It is imperative at this stage to reproduce the provisions of section 142A of the Act, which were amended vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 with effect from 01.10.2014. The pre-amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 142A of the Act are as under: “142A. Estimate by Valuation Officer in certain cases.- (1) For the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellers or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or section 69B or fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. (2) The Valuation Officer to whom a reference is made under sub-section (1) shall for the purposes of dealing with such reference, have all the powers that he has under section 384 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Printed from counselvise.com Page | 17 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. (3) On receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making such assessment or reassessment:” 18.1 The provision after the amendment w.r.e.f. 15.11.1972 are as under: “142A. (1) The Assessing Officer may, for the purposes of assessment or reassessment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him.” 19. Thus, the limitation of the sections under which the reference to the DVO could be made earlier were done away with and were substituted by reference being made for the purposes of assessment or reassessment without any specific mention of any sections. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Rashidaben Taher Morawala (supra), with due respect, inadvertently omitted to consider the amended provisions which were relevant for AY 2017-18 and which include reference to the Valuation Officer to estimate the value including fair market value of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of the report to the Assessing Officer for the purpose of assessment and specific reference to section 69A or 69B of the Act are no longer applicable with effect from 01.10.2014. Since the assessment year is AY 2017-18, the amended provisions which were inadvertently overlooked by the Coordinate Bench nor were they referred to before them by either parties in the case of Smt. Rashidaben Taher Morawala (supra) and therefore, the order of the Coordinate Bench is distinguishable on facts. The assessee has also relied upon the following decisions: 1. ITO-Vs- Santosh Kumer Dalmia reported in (1994) 208-ITR-337 (Cal). 2. CIT-Vs- Chandra Narain Chaudhri reported in (2013) 2019-Taxman-60 (All). Printed from counselvise.com Page | 18 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. 3. Smt. Kalavathy Sundaram -Vs- ITO (2018) 172-ITD-597 (Chennai). 4. DCIT-Vs- Bajaj Chemicals (ITA No.640/Kol/2015) order dtd.23.08.2017 5. Sunil Kumar Agarwal-Vs- CIT- reported in (2015) 372-ITR 83 (Cal) 6. CIT-Vs- Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2013) 357-ITR-671 (Del) 20. However, the same are also not applicable in view of the discussion made relating to amendment in the provisions. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the appeal against the assessee and there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and these grounds of appeal are also dismissed. 21. Ground no. 1 being general in nature does not require any separate adjudication. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 31.10.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 19 I.T.A. No.: 1690/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi Agrawal. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Bimla Devi Agrawal, C/o. Thard & Co., 11, Pollock Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001. 2. Assessing Officer, Circle-34, Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "