CIT Vs. UMEDBHAI INTERNATIONAL P. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of 1 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated July 24, 2009 on the grounds formulated as stated hereunder:

(2.) WE have gone through the judgment and order of the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) and also the judgment and order impugned before us. While reading the same we are of the view that in this matter no question of law is involved far less substantial one for the following reasons as stated hereunder.

(3.) THE Assessee on the basis of the registered valuers report worked out the indexed cost as on 1 -4 -2002 at Rs. 3,06,37,281. It was taken as the opening stock of land in the assessment year under consideration. With the returns the aforesaid valuation report was submitted. However, the assessing officer did not accept valuation and referred the matter to the departmental Valuer under Section 55A of the said Act to determine the fair market value as on 1 -4 -1981 and it was done by the departmental Valuer at Rs. 18,73,800. The assessing officer did not accept the valuation report submitted by the Assessee on the ground that the same was not prepared on the basis of any sale instance. Naturally the assessing officer proceeded on the basis of the valuation of the departmental Valuer which made a lot of difference in assessing tax liability. Basing on the departmental valuation report the assessing officer came to conclusion that the Assessee had overstated the value of the opening stock at Rs. 2,26,54,893 and instead of accepting the loss, as shown in the return the assessing officer has determined the net profit of Rs. 6,09,025. Thus the conclusion was arrived at by the assessing officer was based on valuation. Therefore, the point raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the valuation was got to be done by the assessing officer without compliance with Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the Assessee reference to the valuation officer is without jurisdiction as per condition for reference was not satisfied. According to the Assessee before making any reference the assessing officer has to form opinion that the value so claimed is less than the fair market value without doing so reference is without jurisdiction. On this limited point the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and held that the reference was not done by the assessing officer in compliance with the provisions of Section 55A of the said Act. The Tribunal also upheld this finding.