Anil T. Kriplani, New Delhi V. CIT(IT-2), New Delhi

ITA 506/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3471 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Assessment record; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 263; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI , ! ' #$.&. . . , '( ! ' ) BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '. / ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 * * / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ANIL T.KRIPLANI, C/-M/S. RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-1, NEW DELHI-110049. PAN-BFSPK8660Q .......... +, /APPELLANT VS THE CIT(IT-2), NEW DELHI. . -.+, / RESPONDENT +, / 0 ' / APPELLANT BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA & SH. SOMIL AGARWAL, ADV. -.+, / 0 ' / RESPONDENT BY : SH. SANJAY GOYAL, CIT DR / 1( / DATE OF HEARING: 01.10.2019 23 / 1( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.11.2019 '4 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2), NEW DELHI, DATED 30. 11.2018 RELATING TO ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD, CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ASSUMING JURIS DICTION U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CANCELLING THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2016 PASSED BY LD. AO U/S 143(3)/254 AND DIRE CTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT AND THAT TOO BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/254 DATED 29-12- 2016 IS ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT AO HAS NOT MADE ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE I NVOLVED. 4. THAT HAVING REGARD TO FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGN ED ORDER U/S 263 ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 3 WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AME ND, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A GAINST THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER AGAINST ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/254 OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28 .03.2013 AND TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7.72 CRORES WAS ASSESSED AS AGAINST RE TURNED INCOME OF RS.4.74 CRORES. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSE SSEE HAD DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF PROPERTY AT B-59, M AYFAIR GARDEN, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS HELD BY HIM TO THE EXTENT OF 50% SHARE. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.15,80,00,000/- VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 05.05.2009. THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE C OST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,01,00,000/- AND AFTER TAKING T HE INDEXATION AT RS.6,38,32,000/-. THE SAID VALUATION WAS ON THE BA SIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF GOVT. APPROVED VALUER AS ON 01.04.1981. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (IN SHORT DVO) U/S 55A OF THE ACT FOR VALUING THE PROPERTY AS ON 0 1.04.1981. THE DVO ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERT Y AT RS.6,70,000/- AS ON ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 4 01.04.1981. THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY, ISSUED S HOW CAUSE NOTICE IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RE-CALCU LATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.7,68,82,800/-. THE CIT(A) HOWE VER, REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTED HIM TO ADOPT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.1,01,00,000/-. THE REVENUE FIL ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.09.2015, RES TORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED IN PARA 5 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS, IT WAS OBSERVED TH AT THE VALUE ASSESSED BY REGISTRATION AUTHORITY FOR STAMP DUTY PROCESS COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, HENCE, THE NEED T O RESTORE BACK TO THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVID ED AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS SUBMISSIONS AND JUSTIFIED THE COST OF ACQUISITION ADOPTED BY IT AS ON 01.04.1981, BEING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING O FFICER VIDE PARA 6.2 NOTES THAT THE VALUER IN THE VALUATION REPORT HAD GIVEN C OMPARABLE INSTANCE, BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAI D PROPERTY AND HAD CONSIDERED VARIOUS FACTORS INCLUDING THE LOCATION O F THE PROPERTY AND ALSO RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE OFF ICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACQ.), RANGE-3, NEW DELHI AND ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 5 COMPARED WITH THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND ESTIMATED T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS.95,28,000/- AS ON 01.04.198 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER REMAND FROM THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY A S ON 01.04.1981 WAS PASSED ON 29.12.1960. 5. CONSEQUENT THERETO, THE COMMISSIONER EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRED TO THE VALUATION DONE BY AN AUTHORIZED VALUER VALU ING THE PROPERTY AT RS.95,28,000/- AS ON 01.04.1981. AFTER GOING THROU GH THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2016 WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE SECOND VALUER DID NOT MATCH WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ADOPT COMPAR ABLE VALUATION. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE THE INQUIRIES TO FIND THE VALUE OF ANY COMPARABLE INCIDENT IN 1981. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION ADOPTE D BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH, WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRIES IN THIS REGARD, HENCE, THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE OBJECT ED TO THE PROPOSAL RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, T HE COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUER COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED ON THE SIMPLICITOR REASON THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTIO N WAS A SUPERIOR PROPERTY HAVING BETTER LITIGATION ETC. THE COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 6 ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ANY COMPARABLE INSTANCE IN 1981, INSTEAD OF ADOPTING OF COMPARABLE OF YEAR 1985 AND INDEXING IT BACKWARDS. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE HIGHER VALUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS A SUPERIOR PROPERTY AND HAD BETTER LOCATION, WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY INVES TIGATION COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE SECOND OBJECTION WAS ON THE SIZE OF THE PLOT AND THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY WHOSE PARTICULARS WERE ADOPTED FOR COM PARISON. THE COMMISSIONER ALSO OBJECTED TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS SUCH. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INQUIRY AND VERIFICATION WHICH WAS NEEDED A ND MANDATED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THUS HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER INQUIRY AND INVESTIG ATION. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER. 7. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29.12.2016, IN THE SECOND ROUN D OF PROCEEDINGS HAD ACCEPTED THE VALUE OF REGISTERED VALUER AND ALSO T OOK INSTANCE OF SALE IN 1985 AND ALSO INSTANCE OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS. HE STRESSED WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND AND PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER, THEN THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT HOLD THE ORDER TO BE ERRONE OUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRA WN TO THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO PLACED AT PAG ES 90 TO 98 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES PLACED AT PAG ES 117 TO 119 OF THE ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 7 PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT WHERE THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAD TAKEN A VIEW AND SINCE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS AN ESTIMATIO N, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT SUBSTITUTE H IS VIEW. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE OBSERVATION OF COM MISSIONER IN PARA 9 AND POINTED OUT THAT NO REFERENCE WAS POSSIBLE FOR ESTI MATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY THE DVO U/S 55A(A) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE VALUE DECLARED BY ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS PUJA PRINTS [2014] 360 ITR 697 (BOM.) AND ALSO DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH. MARUTI G.THOPTE VS ITO IN ITA NO .863/PUN/2017 DATED 05.01.2018. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE, N O REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO A CCEPT THE VALUATION OF THE REGISTERED VALUER AND OTHER MATERIAL AND IN SUC H CASES THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 8. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US AND HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD MADE NO INQUIRIES OR ANY INVESTIGATION THEN THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMMISSIONER HAD THE POWER TO EXERCISE HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF MAKING ANY INQUIRY, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STRESSED THAT THE ORDER SUFF ERS FROM INFIRMITIES AND ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 8 OPEN TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT . HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL LTD. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). HE ALSO REFERRED TO T HE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINAN CE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01.06.2015. 9. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN RE-JOINDER POINTE D THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS JUST REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN CASE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT NO INQU IRIES WERE MADE BY HIM THEN HE OUGHT TO HAVE MADE INQUIRIES. IN THIS REGA RD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN DIRE CTOR OF INCOME TAX VS JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (DELHI). HE ALSO POIN TED OUT THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE APPLIED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE COMMISSIONER HAS TH E POWER, INCASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE REQ UIREMENT OF LAW IS THAT BOTH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SECTION I.E. ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HAVE TO BE FULFILL ED INCASE THE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO EXERCISE HIS POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAD HELD THAT TWIN CONDITIONS ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 9 OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE TO BE SATISFIED AND I N CASE ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT I.E. ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRON EOUS BUT NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE OR IF IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, BUT NOT ERRONEOUS, THEN RECOURSE CANNOT BE MADE TO SECT ION 263(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE SAID CASE THAT THE PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRE CT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACT ED AND INCORRECT ASSESSMENT OF FACTS OR INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SAME C ATEGORY FALLS THE ORDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE APE X COURT THAT THE PHASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE HAS TO BE RE AD IN CONJUNCTION WITH ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EV ERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS CONSEQUENT OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN NOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE; FOR EXAMPLE , WHEN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND I T HAS RESULTED ANY LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS ORDER WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITO IS UNSUSTAINABLE I N LAW. ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 10 11. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROCEEDIN GS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE IN SECOND ROUND WHERE THE MATTER WAS R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A DENOVO ASSESSMENT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE DISPUT E WAS WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS VIS-A-VIS TH E COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INITIAL ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS HAD FILED A VALUER REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER IN SUPPO RT OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATIO N, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED A VALUER REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER AND HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON SALE INSTANCE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY IN 1985 IN THE ADJACE NT AREA AND ALSO INSTANCE OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS BY THE INCOME T AX DEPARTMENT IN ANOTHER CASE. THE REGISTERED VALUER ON THE BASIS O F THE SAME HAD ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.95,28,000/- I.E. BY BACKWARD CALCULATION FROM 1985 TO 1981. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DVO HAD MADE BACKWARD CALCULATION OF THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY FROM T HE DATE OF SALE AND HAD NOT RELIED ON ANY SALE INSTANCE DURING THE CORRESPO NDING PERIOD. THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE DVOS REPORT IN THE F IRST ROUND. THE COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS FAILED TO CORRECTLY DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01. 04.1981. 12. BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS WHETHER THE VALUE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DETERMINED OR NOT, WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT THE ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 11 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A PPLIED AND NO REFERENCE IS POSSIBLE TO BE MADE TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT A FIGURE LESS THAN THAT SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY SUCH REFERENCE TO THE DVO TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY I.E. COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981, AT ANY PRICE LESS THAN THE PRICE SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS TO ACCEPT THE VALUATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01 .04.1981. THE SAID VALUATION IS SUPPORTED BY A REPORT OF THE REGISTERE D VALUER AND OTHER SALES INSTANCE DURING THE PERIOD. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE CO MMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE REVERSE THE SAME AND HOLD THE SAID ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS BOTH INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. THUS, GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) '( ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ' DATED : 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 . * AMIT KUMAR * ITA NO.506/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 PAGE | 12 '4 / - 156 7'61/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. +, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT 3. 91 ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. < 91 / THE PR. CIT 5. 6. 6=> - 1 , , / DR, ITAT, DELHI >#* ? / GUARD FILE. '4 / BY ORDER , .61 - 1 // TRUE COPY // @ AB!C , , ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI