Vijay Shambhulal Jobanputra Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
CIT(A) cannot abdicate its jurisdiction nor can it dispose of substantive objections by a mere endorsement of the DVO’s report without independent application of mind.
ITAT Mumbai Sets Aside NFAC Order for Non-Compliance of Earlier Directions; Remands DVO Valuation Dispute for Fresh Speaking Order With Full Opportunity
The assessee, a senior citizen, challenged the NFAC’s order upholding the DVO’s valuation of his Koregaon Park, Pune property as on 01.04.1981 for capital gains computation. The AO had rejected the assessee’s registered valuer’s FMV of ₹2.50 crore & referred the matter to the DVO, who valued it drastically lower at ₹33.83 lakh. In the first round, ITAT had restored the matter to CIT(A) with specific directions to examine each objection, ensure personal/virtual hearing, & pass a reasoned speaking order in line with natural justice.
However, in the remand proceedings, the NFAC again upheld the DVO report without granting any personal hearing, without reproducing or analysing the assessee’s objections, & by incorrectly holding that CIT(A) has “no discretion” to interfere with DVO valuation. ITAT held this approach to be legally untenable, stating that the appellate authority cannot abdicate jurisdiction, & must independently evaluate whether the DVO considered correct comparable sales, especially when geographical proximity was a key objection.
