The order of the Bench was delivered by
D. KARUNAKARA RAo (Accountant Member).-This appeal filed by the Revenue on February 15, 2012 is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai dated December 9, 2011 for the assessment year 2006-07.
2 In this appeal, the Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under:
"1. On the facts and in the circumstarces of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deciding that the Assessing Officer's exercise in invokinf, the powers under section 155(15) of the Act for substituting the stamp valuation authority's valuation by the Valuation Officer's as clearly incorrect.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deciding the action of the Assessing Officer under seLtion 155(15) as incorrect because the report of the Valuation Officer is binding on the Assessing Officer, once the matter has been referred to the Valuation Officer.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the law as per section 155(15) which itself has the inbuilt provision for rectification of the order passed by the Assessing Officer after the reference made to the Valuation Officer, is completed and the report of the Valuation Officer has been received."
3 Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from commission and brokerage from real estate transactions. The assessee filed the return declaring the total income of Rs. 24,53,750. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 35,69,588. The increase in assessed income is mainly on account of capital gains computed applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act and adopted fair market value figures as per the stamp valuation authorities (SVA) of the State Government. The assessment was completed on December 26, 2008 before the Departmental Valuation Officer report is received. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee made a request for making a referral to the Departmental Valuation Officer and accordingly, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Valuation Officer's report was received on February 28, 2009 and he enhanced the v-uue of the referred asset. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 155(15) of the Act and passed the modification order on June 1, 2009, rectifying his assessment order. The total income of the assessee was thus determined at Rs. 32,18,628. In these factual matrix of the case, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) objecting to the invoking of the provisions of section 155(15) of the Act.
During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, it is the claim of the assessee that the provisions of section 155(15) should not be invoked to give effect to the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer. It was submitted that the provisions of clause (b) to section 50C(2) refers to only values adopted by the stamp valuation authorities and not to the values adopted by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the same and granted relief to the assessee. Contents of paragraph 5 of the impugned order are relevant here.
Aggrieved with the above decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the abovementioned grounds.
During the proceeding before us, the learned Departmental representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, Shri G. P. Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
We have heard both parties and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities in general and paragraph 5 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order in particular. In this regard, we have also perused the provisions of section 155(15) of the Act, which read as under :
"155(15).-Where in the assessment for any year, a capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is computed by taking the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer to be the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 50C, and subsequently such value is revised in any appeal or revision or reference referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of that section, the Assessing Officer shall amend the order of assessment so as to compute the capital gain by taking the full value of the consideration to be the value as so revised in such appeal or revision or reference ; and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto, and the period of four years shall be reckoned from the end of the previous year in which the order revising the value was passed in that appeal or revision or reference."
Further, we have also perused the provisions of section 50C(2)(b) and the same read as follows.
“50C(2). Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where--
(b) the value so adopted or assessed (or assessable) by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has nof been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation Officer .... 1/
Fr the above, it is evident that the provisions section 155(15) is invokked only in cases of situations covered by section 50C(2)(b) of the Act. the above clause (b) of section 50C(2) of the Act refers to the values adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authorities, which have not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any authority, court or the High Court. The said provision does not cover a situation of the present appeal where a reference was made under section 55A to the Departmental Valuation Officer. There is a difference between the dispute on the value of stamp valuation authorities and the value of the Departmental Valuation Officer. Thus, the Departmental Valuation Officer's value is outside the scope of section 155(15) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 155(15) were wrongly invoked by the Assessing Officer for giving effect to the findings of the report by the Valuation Officer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the· Revenue is dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on the 20th September, 2013.