Mr. Filipe Neri Piedade Correia., Margao V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Margao., Margao

MA 40/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3697 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D E ROBINSON
• Keywords: Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO. 40 /PNJ/2015 ( ITA NO. 427 /PNJ/201 5 & CO NO.10/PNJ/2015 ) (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 ) MR. FILIPE NERI PIEDADE CORREIA, H.NO. 329, MONS. G. REBELLO ROAD, MARGAO GOA. VS. IT O , WARD - 2, MARGAO. PAN NO. AAYPC 4090 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.E. ROBINSON ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR - DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 / 1 1 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 9 / 1 1 /201 5 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS A MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO. 427/PNJ/2014 & C.O.NO. 10/PNJ/2015 , DATED 17/06/2015 . 2. SHRI D.E. ROBINSON, ADV OCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD , IN PARA 6 OF ITS ORDER , DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OBTAIN A PROPER VALUATION FROM THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) IN RESPECT OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TWO 2 M A NO. 40/PNJ/201 5 PROPERTIES AS ON 01/04/1981 . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS REPORTED IN 360 ITR 697 , HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SEC. 55A(A) OF THE ACT WAS W.E.F. 01/07/2012 AND PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO ONLY , IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER APPEAL IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 I.E. YEAR ENDING 31/03/2011 AND AS THE AME NDMENT TOOK - PLACE ONLY W.E.F. 01/07/2012, THERE WAS NO OPTION OF REFERRING THE VALUATION TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 BY THE TRIBUNAL . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WAS LIABLE TO THE RECTIFIED . 4 . IN REPLY, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6 . ADMITTEDLY, IN PARA 6 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER , THE ISSUE OF THE VALUATION ON THE TWO PROPERTIES FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR OBTAINING PROPER VALUATION FROM THE DVO. ADMITTEDLY, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) , SUCH REFERENCE TO THE DVO UNDER SEC. 55A(A) COULD HAVE BEEN DONE ONLY W.E.F. 01/07/2012. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE IS 2011 - 12 . CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SUFF ERS FOR A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD . CONSEQUENTLY, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NOS. 6 & 7 STAND RECALLED AND IT SHALL BE READS NOW AS FOLLOWS: - 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS NEITHER THE BASIS ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE VALUATION NOR THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BEFORE US, WE ARE UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN THE 3 M A NO. 40/PNJ/201 5 PRESENT CASE. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) AS THE VALUATION UNDER SEC. 55A(A) OF THE ACT COULD BE REFERRED TO THE DVO ONLY , IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER L ESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND AS SUCH OPINION IS NOT EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE VALUATION HAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IS L I ABLE TO BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT AND WE DO SO. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THURSDAY , THE 1 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 5 AT GOA . SD/ - SD/ - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 9 TH NOVEMBER , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI 4 M A NO. 40/PNJ/201 5 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 9 . 1 1 .2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20 . 1 1 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 20 / 1 1 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 20 / 1 1 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 20 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER