Case Law Details
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
In the instant case, the assessee had claimed the value of property as per the registered valuer’s report. Therefore, under clause (a) of section 55A, the Assessing Officer was required to form an opinion that the value claimed by the assessee as per the registered valuer’s report was less than the fair market value. The estimated value proposed by the DVO was less than the fair market value shown by the assessee as on 1-4-1981. Therefore, clause (a) of section 55A could not be made applicable. Clause (b) of section 55A can be invoked only in any other case, namely, when the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is not supported by an estimate made by a registered valuer. In the facts of the instant case, clause (b) of section 55A also could not be invoked. Therefore, there was no question of having recourse to sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 55A. [Para 11]
Further, for invoking section 55A, there has to be a claim made by the assessee, before the Assessing Officer can record opinion either under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 55A to make a reference to the Valuation Officer. In the instant case, the reference was made on 26-4-1996, whereas the return of income had been filed by the assessee only on 27-8-1996. Hence, on the date of making the reference by the Assessing Officer, no claim had been made by the assessee and the Assessing Officer could not have formed any opinion as to existence of prescribed difference between the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee and the fair market value. Therefore also, the provisions of section 55A could not have been resorted to by the Assessing Officer. [Para 12]
THERE IS ALSO RAJKOT ITAT DECISION ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE CASE OF
SHRI SORATHIA JAYANTIBHAI SHAMJIBHAI V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ITA NO.564/RJT/2012 AY:2009-10 DATED 4/01/2016