Income-tax Officer, V. Late Kum. Allobai Bezonji Jalnawala, through, Mumbai

ITA 895/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7136 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Reason to believe
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 148; 144

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.895/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA. . / APPELLANT V/S LATE KUM. ALLOBAI BEZONJI JALNAWALA, THROUGH GPA HOLDER SHRI RUSTUM P. BHARUCHA, NADIRSHA DINSHA BUILDING, FN6, PREMPURI ASHRAM, MUMBAI 07. PAN : AKWPS5803R. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH JHA, JCIT. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS EMANATING OUT OF T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 1, AURANGABAD DT.16.03.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FO R A.Y.2005- / DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.11.2017 2 06 ON 30.08.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12,03,110/-. O N VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS IT WAS NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT AT SURVEY NO.261 OF JALNA ADMEASURING TOTAL AREA OF 6816.1 SQ.MTRS ALONG WITH STRUCT URES STANDING THEREON FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,15,00,000/- AND ASSESSEES SHARE IN PLOT OF LAND WAS 30% AND THEREFORE T HE SHARE OF CONSIDERATION WAS RS.64,50,000/-. ASSESSEE CALCULATED THE C APITAL GAIN AT RS.12,03,110/- AND PAID THE TAXES ACCORDINGLY. AO NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED 70 YEARS BACK AND THE VALUATION REPORT AS ON 01.04.1984 WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED. IN THE ABSENCE OF VALUATION REPORT, THE COST OF ACQUISITION DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.36,33,769/- HAD NO BASE AND ACCOR DINGLY, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS ALSO NOT CORRECT. AO THEREFORE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.52,32,627/- CHAR GEABLE FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION OF 2(B) OF SEC.147 OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGL Y, ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DT.29.03.2012 AND SERVED ON T HE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ALSO SERVED UPON ASSESSEE ON 22.10.201 2 AND THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. HE ACCORDINGLY FRAMED AN ASSESSMENT U /S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.19.03.2013 AND DE TERMINED THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.51,36,120/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.16.03.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.ABD/CIT(A)/91/2013-14)(A1/7)) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 9.1 THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER ON TH E FACTS AND IN LAW, THE AO. IS JUSTIFIED IN REFERRING THE VALUATIO N OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 U/S 55A TO DVO, PARTICULA RLY IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT AND MAK ING ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID VALUATION REPORT. IN THE C ASE UNDER 3 APPEAL, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED FROM THE STATEMENT OF C OMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON 01 /04/1981 ON THE - BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUER, THOUGH THE SAID VALUATION REPORT HAS NOT BEEN FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAI D REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AS P ER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(9) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL IT IS TO BE DECIDED THAT W HETHER THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO. FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFIC ER U/S 55A OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND LEGALLY UNTENAB LE. ON PERUSAL OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT, IT HAS BEE N NOTICED THAT THE SAID SECTION CONFERS JURISDICTION FOR REFERENCE TO THE DVO ONLY WHEN THE AO. IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE OF TH E IMPUGNED ASSET CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL, THE AO. IS OF THE OPINION THAT VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED ASSET AS ON 01/04/1981 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE ABOVE PROPO SITION OF LAW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS - (1) CIT-13. MUMBAI VS. MIS PUJA PRINTS (2014) 360 ITR 697 (BORN) IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LAND AND BUIL DING FOR RS.2 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE VALUE OF TH E SAID PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.35.99 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF VA LUATION REPORT . THE AO. HAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURC HASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.1 . 45 LAKHS ONLY PRIOR TO 15 MONTHS OF 01/04/1981 . THE AO. HAS REFERRED THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FOR VALU ATION AS ON 01/04/1981 TO THE DVO WHO HAS VALUED THE SAME AT RS .6.68 LAKHS. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, REFERENCE TO DVO U/S 55A IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 55A( A) BY SUBSTITUTING THE WORDS 'IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALU E' FOR THE WORDS 'IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE' IS APPLICABLE FROM 01/07/2012 AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CLARIFICATORY, HAVING RETRO SPECTIVE APPLICATION. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ALSO REJECTED THE RELIANCE PL ACED BY THE REVENUE ON CBDT CIRCULAR NO.96 DATED 25/11/1972 . THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT TH E AO HAS POWER TO CALL FOR THE REPORT FROM THE DVO TO DETERMINE FAIR MARKET VALUE U/S 131, 133(6) AND 142(2) OF THE ACT. (2) SMT.KRUSHNABAI TINGRE VS. ITO (2006) 101 ITD 3 17 (PUNE) IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT REFER ENCE TO DVO CAN ONLY BE MADE IN CASES WHERE THE VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSET SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE; VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981, SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF APPROVED VALUER'S REPORT BEING MORE THAN ITS FA I R MARKET VALUE, REFERENCE U/S 55A WAS NOT VALID. (3) SMT.SARALA N. SAKRANEY VS. ITO [2011]130 ITD 167 (MUM) 4 IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FAIR MARKET VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981, DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT BEING MORE TH AN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ESTIMATED BY THE DVO ON REFERENCE B Y A . O., SAID REFERENCE IS NOT VALID, ESTIMATION OF FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ACCEPTED. (4) CIT VS. DAULAL MOHTA (HUF) (2014) 360 ITR 680 (BORN) THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY HON' BLE MUMBAI ITAT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF SMT. SARALA N. SAKRANEY VS. ITO A.Y.2006- 07 (2011) 140T TJ 411 (MUM) REFERRED TO ABOVE . (5) HIRABEN IAYANTILAL SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [2009] 310 ITR 31 (GUJ) IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REFERENCE MADE BY AO U/S 55A TO DVO ON 26 TH APRIL, 1996, FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 AND ON THE DATE OF SALE WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION FOR THE REASONS THAT RETURN WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE ONLY ON 27 TH AUGUST, 1996, VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981, AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY ESTIMATE OF REGISTERED VAL UER WAS HIGHER THAN ESTIMATED BY DVO AND NO OPINION WAS FORMED BY AO THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISTURBED BECAUSE PRESCRIBED PARAMETERS WERE FULFILLED. (6) PRATAP M. INDULKAR, MUMBAI VS. DEPA RTMENT OF INCOME TAX, ITA NO.1142/MUM/2010 A . Y.2 006-07 (7) RUBAB M. KAZERANI VS. ]CIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (TM) (MUM) (8) BONY ELIES DEMELLO VS. ACIT, ITA NO.7870/MUM/2010 D ATED 05/04/2013 , 2013-TIOL-297ITAT-MUM. (9) ITO VS. CHANDRAKANT RAMCHANDRA KHOT, I TA NO.1216/PN/2011 (A . Y . 2008-09) ORDER DATED 27/11/2014. (10) ITO WARD-2(1), AURANGABAD VS. ANIL RAJAR AM BELAMBE (HUF), ITA NO.806/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) ORDE R DT.28.04.2014. IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANIL RAJARAM BELAMB E (HUF) AT SR.NO.(10) ABOVE, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . THE CONCLUDING PORTION OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE IS REPRODUCED BELOW- FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IT IS NOTICED THAT UP T O 01.07.2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD MAKE REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 55A IN CASE OF VALUE OF ASSET CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN THE OPINION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS LES S THAN MARKET VALUE. IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL, THE VALUE OF 4 LAN D AS ON 01.04.1981 AS PER OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MORE THA N MARKET VALUE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER CANNOT REFER THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION BY VALUATION OFFIC ER UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT. FOR SIMILAR REASON AS AB OVE, THE ASSESSING 5 OFFICER COULD NOT REFER THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (B)(I) OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER COULD NOT REFER THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION BY DVO UNDER CLAUSE (B)( II) OF SECTION 55A AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1 981 ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF GOVERNMENT APPROVED VA LUER SHRI ATUL THOMBARE. IN THE CASE OF SMT. SARALA N. SAKRANEY VS . ITO, A.Y. 2006- 07 (2011) 140 TTJ 411 (MUM) HAS HELD THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT BEING MORE TH AN FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ESTIMATED BY THE DVO ON REFERENCE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER, SAID REFERENCE IS NOT VALID AND CONSEQUENTLY, ESTIM ATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS T O BE ACCEPTED. THE RATIO OF SMT. SARALA N. SAKRANEY (SUPRA) HAS BE EN LAID DOWN BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DAULAL MOHTA (HUF) IN IT APPEAL NO.1031 OF 2008 DECIDED ON 22.09.2008. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH E REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VALUATION OF PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 4.1 THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS FORTIFIED FROM THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 55A W.E.F. 01.07.2012. IN ORDER TO REMOV E THE ABOVE HURDLE FOR REFERRING THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION WHERE AS P ER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT FRO M THE VALUE ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE, THE LEGISLATURE HAS REPLACED THE WORDS IS LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE BY THE WORD IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01.07.2012. THERE I S NOTHING BEFORE US TO SUGGEST THAT THE AMENDMENT IS 5 RETROSPECTIVE . IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT TO SEC TION 55A, THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF 93,52,345/- BY REFERRING THE PROPERTY FOR VALUE BY DVO U/S.55A OF THE ACT AND FOLLOWING THE SAME VA LUATION REPORT OF THE DVO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION WAS IN QUESTION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED, WHICH NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 9 .2 THUS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO FORTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SEC TION SSA W.E.F, 01/07/2012. IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE ABOVE HURDLE FOR REFERRING THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION, WHERE AS PER THE A.O. THE V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEGISLATURE HAS REPLACED THE WORDS 'IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE', BY THE WORDS 'IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE' BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01/07/2012. IT IS ALSO EVI DENT THAT THE AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE; IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION AND AMENDMENT TO SECTION 55A AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE INCLUDING THE DECIS IONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, PUNE AND HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT, I HOLD THAT THE A . O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS . 39,33,748/- BY REFERRING THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION BY DVO U/S 55A OF THE ACT AND FOLLOWING THE SAID VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONSIDER ED THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUER. THE ADDITION OF RS . 39,33,748/- IS, THEREFORE, DELETED . THE FIRST ISSUE MENTIONED ABOVE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 6 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS. 39, 33,748/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L EARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT,1961 BY WAY OF REFERENCE TO A DVO BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS OPERATIVE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 . 7.2012 AND IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION EXECUTED AFTER THIS DATE. IN THIS REGAR D ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE MEMORANDUM TO FINANCE BILL, 2012 EXPLA INING THE SCOPE AND INTENT OF INTRODUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT,1961 . 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE V IEW UPHOLDING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEMORANDUM TO FINANCE BILL,2012 EXPLAINING THE SCOPE AND INTEN T OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT,1961 AS IT WAS VERY CLEARLY STATED IN SECTION 55A THAT, IN A CASE WHERE CAPITAL ASSET BEC OME PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 1 . 4.1981 AND ASSESSEE HAS OPTION OF SUBSTITUTING FAIR MARKET VALUE AS THE COST OF ASSET IN SUCH CASES ADOPTION OF HIGHER VALUE AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE A S ON 1 . 4.1981 WAS RAMPANT AND LEADING TO LOWER AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN BEING OFFERED TO TAX. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT, THIS AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVE FROM 1 . 7.2012 IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION EXECUTED AFTER THE SAID DATE WHEN IN FACT THE SECTI ON INTENDS TO PROVED THE POWERS TO THE AO FOR REFERENCE TO VALUAT ION IN CASES OF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE VARIANCES. 5. IT IS INCONVINCIBLE TO THINK THAT, THE PROVISIONS W OULD APPLY TO INSTANCES AFTER 1 . 7.2012 WHEN SECTION BY ITSELF SPEAKS OF VALUATION AS ON 1 . 4.1981 . IT IS CLEAR THAT, POWERS ARE INTENDED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AO FOR REFERENCE TO VALUATION SU BSTANTIALLY VARIANCE IN RESPECT OF VALUE AS ON 1 . 4.1981 . 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE V ARIANCE IN THE VALUE ADOPTED AS ON 1 . 4.1981 BEING SUBSTANTIAL, THE REFERENCE MADE BY TO THE DVO WAS CORRECT. THIS CAN ALSO BE BO RNE OUT FROM THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO ARRIVING AT FAIR MA RKET VALUE AS ON 1 . 4.1981 AT RS.9,02,000/- AS AGAINST APPROVED VALUER' S AT RS.36,33,769/-. 4. ON THE DATE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSE SSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED THOUGH THE NOT ICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE FILE FURTHE R REVEALS THAT AFTER THE HEARING, LETTER WAS RECEIVED IN THE REGISTR Y OFFICE ON 16.10.2017 ADDRESSED BY CA UMESH SHARMA, THE AUTHORISED 7 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN IT WAS INTER-ALIA S UBMITTED THAT HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING DUE TO THE BREAK -DOWN OF HIS CAR WHILE COMING FROM AHMEDNAGAR. HE THEREFORE REQUESTE D THAT THE CASE BE RE-FIXED FOR HEARING. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF POOJA PRINTS REPORTED IN 360 ITR 697 (BOM), PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF ARJUN DADA KHARATE IN ITA NO.185/PN/2016 AND NARAYAN KESHAR KULKARNI IN ITA NO.1481/PN/2016 REPORTED IN 48 CCH 228. SINCE THE AFORE SAID LETTER HAS BEEN RECEIVED AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING, THE SAME IS IGNORED AND THE MATTER WAS HEARD EX-PARTE-QUA THE ASSESSEE . 5. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE SOLE CONTRO VERSY IS WITH RESPECT TO THE REFERRING THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) U/S 55A OF THE ACT. 6. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDER OF AO AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED IN THE ORDER AND THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF POOJA PRINTS (SUPRA) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSIDERED THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.198 1 AT RS.35.99 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT. AO HAD REFERRED THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY TO THE DVO FOR VALUATION AND THE DVO VALUED THE SAME AT 6.68 LAKHS. LD.CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF POOJA PRINTS (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY DECLARED BY THE 8 ASSESSEE WAS NOT LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, REFERENC E TO DVO U/S 55A IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. LD.CIT(A) HAS FURTHER PLACED RE LIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED IN THE ORDER. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NEITHER PLACED ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISIONS IN ITS SUPPORT NOR P OINTED OUT ANY FALLACY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE AFORE SAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.C IT(A). THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2017. YAMINI '#$%&'&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-1, AURANGABAD. PRL.CIT-1, AURANGABAD. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $+,-/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // ./0%1&2 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.