|The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0170 (Ctk-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 153B Section 153A Section 142A(6)
Contention of assessee was agreed that the report of the DVO had to be filed within the time given under section 142A(6) and therefore, the assessment order passed on the basis of such belated report of DVO on 25-11-2016 beyond the time-limit was not sustainable, therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed and the assessment order was as such, set aside.
Assessment - Limitation - Delayed valuation report submitted by DVO, i.e., beyond 6 months as stated in section 142A(6) -
In the course of assessment on 14-1-2016, AO made reference to the DVO for valuation of the property which was being developed by assessee. The reference was under section 142A. At the time when the reference was made, sub-section (6) of section 142A provided time-limit for completion of valuation proceedings. As per section 142A(6), sending of the valuation report by the DVO to AO, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the reference was made, was made mandatory. In the facts of the present case, the reference to DVO was made on 14-1-2016 and therefore, the last date by which the DVO was statutorily required to send his valuation report expired on 31-7-2016. It was the contention of AR that the last date for sending the valuation report expired on 31-7-2016 and thereafter within 77 days, i.e. 18-10-2016, the AO was legally bound to pass the order under section 153A read with 143(3). Since no orders of assessment were passed on or before 18-10-2016 but passed on 25-11-2016, the CIT(A) rightly concluded that the Orders, dated 25-11-2016 were passed beyond the limitation prescribed in section 153B and therefore, correctly annulled the orders of the AO. Held: Assessment order under section 143(3) was required to be passed by 31-3-2016 but since the AO had made a reference to the valuation officer under section 142A, vide Letter, dated 19-2-2016, and the valuation report was filed on 20-7-2017, the said period will have to be excluded for determining the time-limit. The period allowed to the DVO to submit the report, under section 142A, the valuation report had to be submitted within six months from the date of the receipt of the reference. Admittedly, in the present case the DVO had submitted the report beyond a period of 15 months. Further, as seen from the assessment order, the AO had directed the DVO to give the valuation of the property as on 8-2-2010, whereas the DVO had given the report as on the date of the execution of the sale deed. When it is mandatory for an officer to follow the timeline prescribed under the Act, such delay cannot be condoned. Contention of the assessee was agreed that the report of the DVO had to be filed within the time given under section 142A(vi) and, therefore, the assessment order passed on the basis of such report of DVO on 25-11-2016 beyond the time-limit was not sustainable. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed and the assessment order was set aside.
Relied:Zulfi Revdjee v. Asstt. CIT ITA No. 2415/Hyd/2018, Order, dated 5-9-2019 : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7268 (Hyd-Trib).
REFERRED : Memon Abdul Karim Haji Tayab v. Deputy Custodian General (1964) 6 SCR 837, T. Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf 2008 9 SCC 306 SCC 206 (SCC p.322, CWT v. Maharaja Devi Singhi of Jodhpur (1985) 20 Taxman 141 (Raj) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 321 (Raj-HC), CIT v. Bjn Hotels Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 110 (Karn-HC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1635 (Karn-HC), Pr. CIT v. Nilkanth Concast (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 568 (Del-HC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3121 (Del-HC) (PB Page no. 60 to 64), CIT v. Brij Hotels Ltd. (016) 38 ITR 110 (Karn) : 2016 TaxPub(DT0 1635 (Karn-HC) and CIT v. Dhariwal Sales enterprises 91996) 21 ITR 2401 (MP) : 1996 TaxPub(DT) 922 (MP-HC).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2012-2013 to 2015-2016
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT