Appeal details
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-03-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
F
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Judgement Text
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol, 1, Neumec Height, Sant Chokha Mela Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Vs. Dy. CIT-Cir-22(1), (Order passed by erstwhile AO, Asst. CIT-Cir-22(3), Mumbai), Piramal Chambers, 3rd floor, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AABPA 2313 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Shreyash Shah/ Mr. Kunal Shah/Ramesh Vora Revenue by : Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 17/03/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal is directed against order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without considering the detailed submissions made by the Appellant. Hence, the rejection of the DVO R grounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June, 2018 on the groun anomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being mandatory to adopt the same. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for the deletions of the additions made by the Learned Assessi 13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the additions were made subject to the valuation report of the DVO. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) disregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is coterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the same is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal before him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues that were not subje 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report without providing opportunities to the Department's DVO and the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CI (A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in contravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable to quashed. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in not submission that the rectification of the assessment under Section 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect of the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as the additions were made subject to the adoption of the said DVO's valuation of the said four properties. Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-(NFAC) has erred in rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without considering the detailed submissions made by the Appellant. Hence, the rejection of the DVO Report on the grounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June, 2018 on the grounds of certain anomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being mandatory to adopt the same. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for the deletions of the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer in view of DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the additions were made subject to the valuation report of the DVO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-(NFAC) has erred in disregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is coterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the same is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal before him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues that were not subject matter of appeal before him. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report without providing opportunities to the Department's DVO and the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CI (A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in contravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable to quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in not appreciating the Appellant's submission that the rectification of the assessment under Section 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect of the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as the additions were made subject to the adoption of the said DVO's valuation of the said four properties. Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 2 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned (NFAC) has erred in rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without considering the detailed submissions made by the eport on the grounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation ds of certain anomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- (NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for the deletions of the additions made by the Learned ng Officer in view of DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the additions were made subject to the valuation report of On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned AC) has erred in disregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is coterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the same is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal before him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues ct matter of appeal before him. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report without providing opportunities to the Department's DVO and the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CIT (A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in contravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- appreciating the Appellant's submission that the rectification of the assessment under Section 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect of the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as the additions were made subject to the adoption of the said DVO's valuation of the said four properties. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) erred in not calling for the rectification order from the Learned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report dated 13th June 2018 has been passed and t Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated 23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under Section 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the Assessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the CIT Appeal is against the provisions of law an violation of the principles of natural justice; 8. Alternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various limitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property situate at CTS No.346 and 347, situat Malvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District registered with the Sub December 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid property vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 at Rs. 1,14,34,000/ value of Rs.2,10,82,000/ 9. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. 10. All aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the alternative and without prejudice 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at Rs.1,53,28,600/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. During the scrutiny proceedings, the that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had purchased one immovable property against purchase consideration of Rs.99,00,000/ Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) erred in not calling for the rectification order from the Learned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report dated 13th June 2018 has been passed and t Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated 23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under Section 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the Assessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the CIT Appeal is against the provisions of law an violation of the principles of natural justice; Alternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various limitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property situate at CTS No.346 and 347, situate at Village Malvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance on 18th December 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid property vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 at Rs. 1,14,34,000/- as against the assessed market value of Rs.2,10,82,000/-. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. All aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the alternative and without prejudice to one another. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at . The return of income filed by the assessee was scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under deration, the assessee had purchased one immovable property against purchase consideration of Rs.99,00,000/- but Stamp Duty Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 3 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) erred in not calling for the rectification order from the Learned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report dated 13th June 2018 has been passed and the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated 23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under Section 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the Assessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the CIT Appeal is against the provisions of law and in Alternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various limitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property e at Village Malvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District Registrar of Assurance on 18th December 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid property vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 he assessed market The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. All aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the another. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at . The return of income filed by the assessee was scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied Assessing Officer noted that in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under deration, the assessee had purchased one immovable property but Stamp Duty Value Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/ Assessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to why the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on account of different between value determined by the stamp valuation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee objected to the adoption of the value determined by the Stamp authority and requested for referring the matter fo District Valuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section 56(2) r.w. section 50C of the Act. matter to the ld DVO. the Assessing Officer the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of Rs.1,11,83,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act property as per Stamp Value Authority. filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income against the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, t issued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO estimated the fair market value of the pro Rs.1,14,34,000/-. A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO has been placed on Paper Book page 115 to 121. issuance of the report by the DVO, the assessee application dated 20.01.2020 u along with Form No. 26AS, evidencing tax payment of Rs.6,71,050/- on 28.03.2019 with reference to the determined between Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 Value Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/ Assessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to hy the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on account of different between value determined by the stamp valuation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee the adoption of the value determined by the Stamp authority and requested for referring the matter for valuation Valuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section 56(2) r.w. section 50C of the Act. The ld AO accordingly referred the matter to the ld DVO. As the assessment was getting time barred the Assessing Officer, without waiting the report of DVO, the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act adopting value of the property as per Stamp Value Authority. The assessee had already filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income against the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, t issued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO the fair market value of the property as on 18.12.2014 at . A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO has been placed on Paper Book page 115 to 121. Pursuant to the issuance of the report by the DVO, the assessee file application dated 20.01.2020 u/s 155(15) of the Act along with Form No. 26AS, evidencing tax payment of on 28.03.2019 with reference to the between the DVO and purchase transaction value. Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 4 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 Value Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to hy the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on account of different between value determined by the stamp valuation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee the adoption of the value determined by the Stamp value valuation by the Valuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section The ld AO accordingly referred the getting time barred , without waiting the report of DVO, passed the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of adopting value of the assessee had already filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, the DVO issued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO perty as on 18.12.2014 at . A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO Pursuant to the filed a rectification /s 155(15) of the Act before the AO. along with Form No. 26AS, evidencing tax payment of on 28.03.2019 with reference to the difference and purchase transaction value. Though the assessee filed two reminders to the carrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order dated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relev reproduced as under: “8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished the report of the DVO which was received after passing the assessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at Rs. 1,14,34,000/ valuation at Rs.2,10,83,000/ figures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the DVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his favour. However i alternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted and the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears that the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of the DVO is mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO is not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the report of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of the property at Rs. 7,216/ his Annexure arriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that properties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/ conduct of the DVO is un bigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of the DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the Stamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by A.O.at Rs. 1, 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the valuation report submitted by th Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 Though the assessee filed two reminders to the Assessing Officer carrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order dated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished the report of the DVO which was received after passing the assessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at ,000/- against the Stamp Valuation Authority's valuation at Rs.2,10,83,000/- the appellant challenge both the figures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the DVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his favour. However it is noticed that the appellant has not taken alternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted and the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears that the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of s mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO is not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the report of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of the property at Rs. 7,216/- per square meter as on 18.12.2014. In his Annexure-ll of the report, the DVO has taken 3 properties for arriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that properties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/-, Rs.3,846/- and Rs. 13,452/ uct of the DVO is un-understandable, he should have taken bigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of the DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the Stamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by 11,83,000/-.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the valuation report submitted by the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 5 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 Assessing Officer for carrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order dated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made ant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is 8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished the report of the DVO which was received after passing the assessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at against the Stamp Valuation Authority's the appellant challenge both the figures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the DVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his t is noticed that the appellant has not taken alternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted and the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears that the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of s mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO is not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the report of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of per square meter as on 18.12.2014. In ll of the report, the DVO has taken 3 properties for arriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that properties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate and Rs. 13,452/-. The understandable, he should have taken bigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of the DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the Stamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the e DVO u/s 55A of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in accordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO report. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions in support of his a) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 (Allahabad) b) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) c) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar ITA No. 2374/Mum/2019 d) Jalan Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO 43 taxmann.com 229 (Kolkata e) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer ITA No. 1821/Pun/2017 4. On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that DVO’s Officer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there are glaring mistake accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) DVO and explain the mistakes or the deficiencies appearing in the report of the DVO. 5. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record assessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer referred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. As the report was not received till completion of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing O Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 accordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO report. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions in support of his contention : a) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 b) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) c) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar ITA No. 2374/Mum/2019 d) Jalan Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO 43 com 229 (Kolkata - Trib.) e) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer ITA No. 1821/Pun/2017 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) ’s report might be mandatory on the Assessing Officer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there are glaring mistakes or error in the report of the DVO. He accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the ) for giving opportunity of being heard explain the mistakes or the deficiencies or inconsistencies appearing in the report of the DVO. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. In view of the objection of the assessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer referred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. As the report was not received till completion of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 6 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 accordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO report. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following a) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 b) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) c) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar ITA No. 2374/Mum/2019 d) Jalan Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO 43 e) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) report might be mandatory on the Assessing Officer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there or error in the report of the DVO. He accordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the of being heard to the or inconsistencies We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused ew of the objection of the assessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer referred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. As the report was not received till completion of the assessment fficer made the addition on the basis of the stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred appeal against the said assessment order which was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee filed a copy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the rectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee also filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed glaring mistakes in the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the same whereas the rectification application already decided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and submitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the Assessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the property as determined by the DVO counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the provisions of section 50C(2)(b) of the Act relying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 observed that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs report. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under : “10. The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr. H. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C. Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 the stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred appeal against the said assessment order which was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal CIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee copy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the rectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee also filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed in the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the Assessing Officer did not act rectification application, probably in view of the fact that decided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and submitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the Assessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the property as determined by the DVO. In support thereof the Ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the provisions of section 50C(2)(b) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court relying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 observed that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs report. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced 10. The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr. H. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C. Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 7 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 the stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred appeal against the said assessment order which was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal CIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee copy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the rectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee also filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed in the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the Assessing Officer did not act upon the the fact that issue was decided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and submitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the Assessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the n support thereof the Ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the he Hon’ble High Court relying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 observed that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs report. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced 10. The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr. H. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C. In this section, the provisions of the Wealth This hon'ble court observed that (page 308) : \"A reading of the sub no option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the valuation of the asset in question is concerned. This is als taken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of India [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All).\" 11. In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that generally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. report then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is hereby upheld with the reasons mentioned therein. 5.1 Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai Thesia (supra), where the reference made u/s 50C of the Act Officer for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by him. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra) Chemical(supra,) the Tribunal has held that once been made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in conformity to the estimate given by the Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report of the DVO is binding Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 In this section, the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act are applicable. This hon'ble court observed that (page 308) : \"A reading of the sub-section shows that the Wealth-tax Officer has no option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the valuation of the asset in question is concerned. This is als taken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of India [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All).\" 11. In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that ally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. report then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is hereby upheld with the reasons mentioned therein.” Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai wherein also the Hon’ble High Court the reference made u/s 50C of the Act is made to the Valuation er for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra). In case of Jalan the Tribunal has held that once been made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in conformity to the estimate given by the DVO. In the case Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report of the DVO is binding on the AO unless the assessee shows suc Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 8 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 tax Act are applicable. tax Officer has no option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the valuation of the asset in question is concerned. This is also the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of 11. In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that ally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. report then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai also the Hon’ble High Court held that once to the Valuation er for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) n case of Jalan the Tribunal has held that once reference has been made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in . In the case Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report the AO unless the assessee shows such glaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel referred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however the Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is as under: “5. In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct. Report of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub section 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the provisions contained in sub under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as received or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 213 Taxman 52/30 taxmann.com 293 similar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal clear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report then the same is binding'. It is thus cle is binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring mistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A), in principle, on this score. 6. Now, I turn to the specific objections of the ass report of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO considered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/ Rs. 15614/- determined the fair market value of the proper p.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself to the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair market value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed by the ld. DR. 7. I do not find a apparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the paper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 and 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee sold its property on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the fair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, location, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was taken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 glaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel referred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however the Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is 5. In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct. Report of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub section 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar [2012] 349 ITR 210/[2013] 213 Taxman 52/30 taxmann.com 293 in which case also the similar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal clear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report then the same is binding'. It is thus clear that the report of the DVO is binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring mistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A), in principle, on this score. 6. Now, I turn to the specific objections of the assessee against the report of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO considered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/ and Rs. 15714/- per square metre respectively, but determined the fair market value of the property at Rs. 18,808/ p.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself to the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair market value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed by the ld. DR. 7. I do not find any substance in the argument of the ld. AR. It is apparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the paper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 and 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee perty on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the fair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, location, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was taken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 9 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 glaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel referred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however the Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced 5. In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct. Report of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub-section (3) of section 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the (2), where the value ascertained section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub- section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court 349 ITR 210/[2013] in which case also the similar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal clear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report ar that the report of the DVO is binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring mistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by essee against the report of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO considered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/-, per square metre respectively, but ty at Rs. 18,808/- p.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself to the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair market value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed ny substance in the argument of the ld. AR. It is apparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the paper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 and 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee perty on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the fair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, location, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was taken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same vide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair market value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines issued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my considered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only starting point for determining the fair market value of any property, which need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the relevant factors, such as, time lag, location, property and future potential etc. need to be considered before determining the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am satisfied that the fair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into account the cumulative effect of all the germane factors. 8. The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee was small in size and no should have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair market value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy sale. This objec the DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he estimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, size and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not stand any further legal scrutiny. 9. Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in respect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the property should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, this factor has not been co much as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the property by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is reference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. Since no litigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be no relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The DVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while dealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no this contention as well, which is hereby repelled. 5.2 In view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is settled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation adopted by the DVO and he was required to pass conformity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 ide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair market value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines issued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my considered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only starting point for determining the fair market value of any property, which need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the relevant factors, such as, time lag, location, shape and size of the property and future potential etc. need to be considered before determining the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am satisfied that the DVO was correct in determining fair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into account the cumulative effect of all the germane factors. 8. The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee was small in size and not in proper shape and hence reduction should have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair market value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy sale. This objection raised by assessee has also been dealt with by the DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he estimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, size and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not and any further legal scrutiny. 9. Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in respect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the property should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, this factor has not been correctly projected by the assessee in as much as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the property by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is reference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. litigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be no relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The DVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while dealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no this contention as well, which is hereby repelled.” In view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is settled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation adopted by the DVO and he was required to pass formity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 10 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 ide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair market value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines issued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my considered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only be a starting point for determining the fair market value of any property, which need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the shape and size of the property and future potential etc. need to be considered before determining the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the DVO was correct in determining fair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into account the cumulative effect of all the germane factors. 8. The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee t in proper shape and hence reduction should have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair market value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy tion raised by assessee has also been dealt with by the DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he estimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, size and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not 9. Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in respect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the property should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, rrectly projected by the assessee in as much as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the property by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is reference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. litigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be no relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The DVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while dealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no force in In view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is settled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation adopted by the DVO and he was required to pass the order in formity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in view of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/ Rs.13,452/-. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have taken a bigger sample for one of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the said report. the Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by th Authorities for sustaining the addition opportunity of being heard to the DVO power of the enhancement the report of the DVO he should have provided opportunit heard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection could have decided the valuation of the property. Co-ordinate Bench decision in case of ITO (2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation report is not binding upon appellate authorities. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s Chitta vs. ITO [2019] 49 ITCD 121 (MAD) held bound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO report. The relevant finding of reproduced as under: 15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authori Assessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also vide Section 131 Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 view of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/ . According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have bigger sample for estimating rate. In our opinion, this being one of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the said report. But we do not agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by th for sustaining the addition without providing opportunity of being heard to the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A) power of the enhancement of addition, if he was not satisfied with the report of the DVO he should have provided opportunit heard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection have decided the valuation of the property. We find that ordinate Bench decision in case of Suresh C. Mehta vs. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation report is not binding upon appellate authorities. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s Jagannathan Sailaja 19] 49 ITCD 121 (MAD) held that ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO The relevant finding of Hon’ble Madras High Court (supra) is reproduced as under: 15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authori Assessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also Section 131 of the Act and, therefore, the Valuation Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 11 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 view of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/- to . According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have In our opinion, this being one of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) e do not agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by the Stamp Duty without providing . The Ld. CIT(A), having if he was not satisfied with the report of the DVO he should have provided opportunity of being heard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection, he We find that the Suresh C. Mehta vs. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation report is not binding upon appellate authorities. Furthern the Jagannathan Sailaja that ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO Madras High Court (supra) is 15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authority and the Assessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also of the Act and, therefore, the Valuation Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumption under Market Value has to be treated as an evidence or presumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in accordance with law. 16. A bare reading of Scheme of show that Assessee can object to Section 50C (1) objections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by authorities. The Assessee cannot be denied an opportunity to raise his objections even against the presumptive Fair Market Value under or Report of DVO under Authority or the Appellate Authorities, whose powers are co-extensive wi cannot refuse to meet those objections point by point. 17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of assessment in the principles of natural justice and the same has not been denied by presumptive provisions, such as several other provisions in the scheme of the Act. 18. In the present facts not CIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, could either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 presumption under Section 50C of the Act about the Fair Market Value has to be treated as an evidence or presumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in accordance with law. 16. A bare reading of Scheme of Section 50C of the Act would show that Assessee can object to presumptive value as per and, therefore, it is only after hearing the objections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by authorities. The Assessee cannot be denied an opportunity to raise his objections even against the presumptive Fair Market Value under Section 50C (1) or Report of DVO under 50C (2) of the Act and the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authorities, whose extensive with those of the Assessing Authority, cannot refuse to meet those objections point by point. 17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of assessment in the Income Tax Act has it at the root the nciples of natural justice and the same has not been denied by presumptive provisions, such as Section 50C several other provisions in the scheme of the Act. 18. In the present facts noted above, we are of the opinion that CIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, could either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 12 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 of the Act about the Fair Market Value has to be treated as an evidence or a legal presumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in of the Act would presumptive value as per and, therefore, it is only after hearing the objections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital Asset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by the authorities. The Assessee cannot be denied an opportunity to raise his objections even against the Section 50C (1) of the Act of the Act and the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authorities, whose th those of the Assessing Authority, cannot refuse to meet those objections point by point. 17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of has it at the root the nciples of natural justice and the same has not been denied of the Act and ed above, we are of the opinion that CIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, could either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing with the said objections in an appropriate and detailed manner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been undertaken by him in the present case. 19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority even at t belatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said purpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumptive value under compute 'Fair Market Value' under the Act and the relief under 20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law framed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the evidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority has the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of Section 131 of the Act b any person, including any officer of a banking company or Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing d objections in an appropriate and detailed manner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been undertaken by him in the present case. 19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority even at this stage, even though belatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said purpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the presumptive value under Section 50C of the Act and then compute 'Fair Market Value' under Section 48 the Act and the relief under Section 54F of the Act. 20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law framed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and Revenue. 21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the evidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority has the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of of the Act by way of enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company or Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 13 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing d objections in an appropriate and detailed manner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been 19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to his stage, even though belatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said purpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority to decide both the questions about the valuation of the property to be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee against the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as of the Act and then Section 48 of of the Act. 20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law framed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and 21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the evidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority has the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of y way of enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company or examining him on oath, production of documents, discovery and inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing with the aforesaid piece of evidence, name Valuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to controvert the presumptive value under the Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers conferred upon him. 5.3 In the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have been pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriat to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an opportunity of being by the ld CIT(A) and seek decide the issue after heard, both to the assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 examining him on oath, production of documents, discovery and inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing with the aforesaid piece of evidence, namely, Departmental Valuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to controvert the presumptive value under Section 50C the Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers ferred upon him. In the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have been pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. DVO on the mistake observed and seek a revised report if required so and then decide the issue after providing adequate opportunity of being the assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/03/2025. (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 14 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 examining him on oath, production of documents, discovery and inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing ly, Departmental Valuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to Section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers In the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have been pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of e to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an on the mistake observed a revised report if required so and then adequate opportunity of being the assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /03/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 17/03/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol 15 ITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "
Mehul