"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \nMUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI \n \nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) \nAND \nSHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) \n \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nAssessment Year: 2015-16 \n \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol, \n1, Neumec Height, Sant Chokha \nMela Road, Vile Parle (East), \nMumbai-400057. \n \n \nVs. \nDy. CIT-Cir-22(1), \n(Order passed by erstwhile AO, Asst. \nCIT-Cir-22(3), Mumbai), \nPiramal Chambers, 3rd floor, \nLalbaug, \nMumbai-400012. \nPAN NO. AABPA 2313 B \n \n \nAppellant \n \nRespondent \n \n \nAssessee by \n: Mr. Shreyash Shah/ \nMr. Kunal Shah/Ramesh Vora \nRevenue by \n: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DR \n \n \n \n \nDate of Hearing \n: 29/01/2025 \nDate of pronouncement \n: 17/03/2025 \n \n \n \n \nORDER \n \nPER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM \n \nThis appeal is directed against order dated 26.10.2023 passed \nby the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. \nCIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds: \n\n \n1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned \nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\nin rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without \nconsidering the detailed submissions made by the \nAppellant. Hence, the rejection of the DVO R\ngrounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, \nunwarranted and uncalled for. \n2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has \nexceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation \nreport dated 13th June, 2018 on the groun\nanomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being \nmandatory to adopt the same. \n3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\n(NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for \nthe deletions of the additions made by the Learned \nAssessi\n13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the \nadditions were made subject to the valuation report of \nthe DVO. \n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned \nCommissioner of Income (Appeals)\ndisregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is \ncoterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the \nsame is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal \nbefore him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues \nthat were not subje\n5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) \n(NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report \nwithout providing opportunities to the Department's DVO \nand the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CI\n(A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in \ncontravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable \nto quashed. \n6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\n(NFAC) has erred in not \nsubmission that the rectification of the assessment under \nSection 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect \nof the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as \nthe additions were made subject to the adoption of the \nsaid DVO's valuation of the said four properties. \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned \nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-(NFAC) has erred \nin rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without \nconsidering the detailed submissions made by the \nAppellant. Hence, the rejection of the DVO Report on the \ngrounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, \nunwarranted and uncalled for. \nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has \nexceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation \nreport dated 13th June, 2018 on the grounds of certain \nanomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being \nmandatory to adopt the same. \nThe Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\n(NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for \nthe deletions of the additions made by the Learned \nAssessing Officer in view of DVO's valuation report dated \n13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the \nadditions were made subject to the valuation report of \nthe DVO. \nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned \nCommissioner of Income (Appeals)-(NFAC) has erred in \ndisregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is \ncoterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the \nsame is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal \nbefore him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues \nthat were not subject matter of appeal before him. \nThat the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) \n(NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report \nwithout providing opportunities to the Department's DVO \nand the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CI\n(A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in \ncontravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable \nto quashed. \nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)\n(NFAC) has erred in not appreciating the Appellant's \nsubmission that the rectification of the assessment under \nSection 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect \nof the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as \nthe additions were made subject to the adoption of the \nsaid DVO's valuation of the said four properties. \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n2 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned \n(NFAC) has erred \nin rejecting the Valuation Report of the DVO without \nconsidering the detailed submissions made by the \neport on the \ngrounds of alleged anomalies in the report is unjustified, \nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has \nexceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the DVO's valuation \nds of certain \nanomalies noticed and rejected the same as not being \nThe Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-\n(NFAC) has not appreciated the submissions made for \nthe deletions of the additions made by the Learned \nng Officer in view of DVO's valuation report dated \n13th June 2018 2019 for the one property as the \nadditions were made subject to the valuation report of \nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned \nAC) has erred in \ndisregarding the Valuation Report of the DVO, which is \ncoterminous to the assessment order, to the extent the \nsame is not challenged by the appellant in the appeal \nbefore him and thereby erred in adjudicating the issues \nct matter of appeal before him. \nThat the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) \n(NFAC) has erred in rejecting the DVO's Valuation report \nwithout providing opportunities to the Department's DVO \nand the Appellant to rebut the grounds of the learned CIT \n(A) for rejection and hence the CIT (A) order is in \ncontravention of Principles of Natural Justice and is liable \nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-\nappreciating the Appellant's \nsubmission that the rectification of the assessment under \nSection 155(15) required to be carried out by giving effect \nof the DVO's valuation report dated 13th June 2018 as \nthe additions were made subject to the adoption of the \nsaid DVO's valuation of the said four properties. \n\n \n7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) \nerred in not calling for the rectification order from the \nLearned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report \ndated 13th June 2018 has been passed and t\nAssessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated \n23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under \nSection 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the \nAssessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the \nCIT Appeal is against the provisions of law an\nviolation of the principles of natural justice; \n8. Alternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax \n(Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various \nlimitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property \nsituate at CTS No.346 and 347, situat\nMalvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District \nregistered with the Sub\nDecember 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid \nproperty vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 \nat Rs. 1,14,34,000/\nvalue of Rs.2,10,82,000/\n9. The Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend \nand/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid \ngrounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. \n10. \nAll aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the\nalternative and without prejudice\n2. \nBriefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its \nreturn of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at \nRs.1,53,28,600/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was \nselected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the \nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied \nwith. During the scrutiny proceedings, the \nthat in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under \nconsideration, the assessee had purchased one immovable property \nagainst purchase consideration of Rs.99,00,000/\nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nThe Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) \nerred in not calling for the rectification order from the \nLearned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report \ndated 13th June 2018 has been passed and t\nAssessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated \n23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under \nSection 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the \nAssessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the \nCIT Appeal is against the provisions of law an\nviolation of the principles of natural justice; \nAlternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax \n(Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various \nlimitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property \nsituate at CTS No.346 and 347, situate at Village \nMalvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District \nregistered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance on 18th \nDecember 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid \nproperty vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 \nat Rs. 1,14,34,000/- as against the assessed market \nvalue of Rs.2,10,82,000/-. \nThe Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend \nand/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid \ngrounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. \nAll aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the\nalternative and without prejudice to one another. \nBriefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its \nreturn of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at \n. The return of income filed by the assessee was \nscrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the \ntax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied \nwith. During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer\nthat in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under \nderation, the assessee had purchased one immovable property \nagainst purchase consideration of Rs.99,00,000/- but Stamp Duty \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n3 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nThe Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal NFAC) \nerred in not calling for the rectification order from the \nLearned Assessing Officer in view of the DVO Report \ndated 13th June 2018 has been passed and the \nAssessment Order passed under Section 143(3) dated \n23d December 2017 was subject to rectification under \nSection 155(15) of the Act (refer para 5.4 of the \nAssessment Order) and hence, the order passed by the \nCIT Appeal is against the provisions of law and in \nAlternatively, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax \n(Appeals NFAC) erred in not considering the various \nlimitations, deficiencies in the valuation of the property \ne at Village \nMalvani, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District \nRegistrar of Assurance on 18th \nDecember 2014. The DVO has valued the aforesaid \nproperty vide its valuation Report dated 13th June 2018 \nhe assessed market \nThe Appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend \nand/or delete and/or modify and/or alter aforesaid \ngrounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands. \nAll aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent, in the \nanother. \nBriefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its \nreturn of income on 04.08.2016 declaring total income at \n. The return of income filed by the assessee was \nscrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the \ntax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied \nAssessing Officer noted \nthat in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under \nderation, the assessee had purchased one immovable property \nbut Stamp Duty \n\n \nValue Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/\nAssessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to \nwhy the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on \naccount of different between value determined by the stamp \nvaluation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee \nobjected to the adoption of the value determined by the Stamp \nauthority and requested for referring the matter fo\nDistrict Valuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section \n56(2) r.w. section 50C of the Act. \nmatter to the ld DVO. \nthe Assessing Officer\nthe assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of \nRs.1,11,83,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act\nproperty as per Stamp Value Authority. \nfiled an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income\nagainst the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, t\nissued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO \nestimated the fair market value of the pro\nRs.1,14,34,000/-. A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO \nhas been placed on Paper Book page 115 to 121. \nissuance of the report by the DVO, the assessee\napplication dated 20.01.2020 u\nalong \nwith \nForm \nNo. \n26AS, \nevidencing \ntax \npayment \nof \nRs.6,71,050/- on 28.03.2019 with reference to the \ndetermined between\nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nValue Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/\nAssessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to \nhy the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on \naccount of different between value determined by the stamp \nvaluation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee \nthe adoption of the value determined by the Stamp \nauthority and requested for referring the matter for valuation\nValuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section \n56(2) r.w. section 50C of the Act. The ld AO accordingly referred the \nmatter to the ld DVO. As the assessment was getting time barred \nthe Assessing Officer, without waiting the report of DVO, \nthe assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of \nu/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act adopting value of the \nproperty as per Stamp Value Authority. The assessee had already \nfiled an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income\nagainst the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, t\nissued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO \nthe fair market value of the property as on 18.12.2014 at \n. A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO \nhas been placed on Paper Book page 115 to 121. Pursuant to the \nissuance of the report by the DVO, the assessee file\napplication dated 20.01.2020 u/s 155(15) of the Act\nalong \nwith \nForm \nNo. \n26AS, \nevidencing \ntax \npayment \nof \non 28.03.2019 with reference to the \nbetween the DVO and purchase transaction value. \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n4 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nValue Authorities valued the property at Rs.2,10,83,000/-. The \nAssessing Officer accordingly had show caused to the assessee as to \nhy the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act not been made on \naccount of different between value determined by the stamp \nvaluation authority and the purchase consideration. The assessee \nthe adoption of the value determined by the Stamp value \nvaluation by the \nValuation Officer (DVO) as per the provisions of the section \nThe ld AO accordingly referred the \ngetting time barred \n, without waiting the report of DVO, passed \nthe assessment order dated 27.12.2017 making the addition of \nadopting value of the \nassessee had already \nfiled an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) \nagainst the aforesaid assessment order and subsequently, the DVO \nissued its report on 13.06.2018 u/s 55A of the Act. The DVO \nperty as on 18.12.2014 at \n. A copy of the valuation report issued by the DVO \nPursuant to the \nfiled a rectification \n/s 155(15) of the Act before the AO. \nalong \nwith \nForm \nNo. \n26AS, \nevidencing \ntax \npayment \nof \non 28.03.2019 with reference to the difference \nand purchase transaction value. \n\n \nThough the assessee filed two reminders to the \ncarrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out \nby the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order \ndated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made \nby the Assessing Officer. The relev\nreproduced as under:\n“8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished \nthe report of the DVO which was received after passing the \nassessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at \nRs. 1,14,34,000/\nvaluation at Rs.2,10,83,000/\nfigures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the \nDVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his \nfavour. However i\nalternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted \nand the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears \nthat the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of \nthe DVO is mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO \nis not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the \nreport of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of \nthe property at Rs. 7,216/\nhis Annexure\narriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that \nproperties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate \nranging from Rs.1,799/\nconduct of the DVO is un\nbigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of \nthe DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the \nStamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by\nA.O.at Rs. 1, \n3. \nBefore us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper \nBook containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee \nsubmitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the \nvaluation report submitted by th\nTherefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nThough the assessee filed two reminders to the Assessing Officer \ncarrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out \nby the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order \ndated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made \nby the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is \nreproduced as under: \n8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished \nthe report of the DVO which was received after passing the \nassessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at \n,000/- against the Stamp Valuation Authority's \nvaluation at Rs.2,10,83,000/- the appellant challenge both the \nfigures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the \nDVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his \nfavour. However it is noticed that the appellant has not taken \nalternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted \nand the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears \nthat the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of \ns mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO \nis not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the \nreport of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of \nthe property at Rs. 7,216/- per square meter as on 18.12.2014. In\nhis Annexure-ll of the report, the DVO has taken 3 properties for \narriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that \nproperties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate \nranging from Rs.1,799/-, Rs.3,846/- and Rs. 13,452/\nuct of the DVO is un-understandable, he should have taken \nbigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of \nthe DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the \nStamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by\n 11,83,000/-.” \nBefore us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper \nBook containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee \nsubmitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the \nvaluation report submitted by the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. \nTherefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n5 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nAssessing Officer for \ncarrying out rectification but no such rectification was carried out \nby the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the CIT(A) passed its order \ndated 26.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition made \nant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is \n8.2.1 In his written submissions the appellant has also furnished \nthe report of the DVO which was received after passing the \nassessment order. The DVO has taken the value of the property at \nagainst the Stamp Valuation Authority's \nthe appellant challenge both the \nfigures. He has also disputed the valuation figure arrived by the \nDVO. The appellant also relied upon number of case laws in his \nt is noticed that the appellant has not taken \nalternative ground that if the addition made by the A.O. is deleted \nand the valuation of the DVO is taken for consideration. It appears \nthat the appellant has automatically presumed that the report of \ns mandatory for the A.O. Whereas, the report of the DVO \nis not mandatory for the Assessing Officer. I have gone through the \nreport of the DVO and noticed that the DVO has arrived the rate of \nper square meter as on 18.12.2014. In \nll of the report, the DVO has taken 3 properties for \narriving the above said amount. But it is interesting to note that \nproperties taken DVO are showing high variation in the rate \nand Rs. 13,452/-. The \nunderstandable, he should have taken \nbigger sample for working on the market rate. I hold the report of \nthe DVO is not acceptable and rely upon the rate circulated by the \nStamp Authorities. Thereby, I am confirming the addition made by \nBefore us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper \nBook containing pages 1 to 221. The Ld. counsel for the assessee \nsubmitted that the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound by the \ne DVO u/s 55A of the Act. \nTherefore, the Assessing Officer was required to rectify its order in \n\n \naccordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO \nreport. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following \ndecisions in support of his \na) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 \n(Allahabad) \nb) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) \nc) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar ITA No. 2374/Mum/2019 \nd) \nJalan \nChemical \nIndustries \n(P.) \nLtd. \nvs. \nITO \n43 \ntaxmann.com 229 (Kolkata \ne) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer \nITA No. 1821/Pun/2017 \n4. \nOn the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) \nsubmitted that DVO’s\nOfficer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there \nare glaring mistake\naccordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the \nfile of the Ld. CIT(A) \nDVO and explain the mistakes or the deficiencies \nappearing in the report of the DVO. \n5. \nWe have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused \nthe relevant materials on record\nassessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer \nreferred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. \nAs the report was not received till completion of the assessment \nproceedings, the Assessing O\nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \naccordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO \nreport. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following \ndecisions in support of his contention : \na) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 \n \nb) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) \nc) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar ITA No. 2374/Mum/2019 \nd) \nJalan \nChemical \nIndustries \n(P.) \nLtd. \nvs. \nITO \n43 \ncom 229 (Kolkata - Trib.) \ne) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer \nITA No. 1821/Pun/2017 \nOn the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) \n’s report might be mandatory on the Assessing \nOfficer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there \nare glaring mistakes or error in the report of the DVO. He \naccordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the \n) for giving opportunity of being heard \nexplain the mistakes or the deficiencies or inconsistencies \nappearing in the report of the DVO. \nWe have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused \nthe relevant materials on record. In view of the objection of the \nassessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer \nreferred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. \nAs the report was not received till completion of the assessment \nproceedings, the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n6 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \naccordance with section 155(15) of the Act upon receipt by the DVO \nreport. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following \na) CIT vs. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar 349 ITR 210 \nb) PCIT vs. Rajibhai Nagjibhai Thesia 388 ITR 358 (Gujarat) \nc) ITO vs. Dipika Dinesh Kocharekar ITA No. 2374/Mum/2019 \nd) \nJalan \nChemical \nIndustries \n(P.) \nLtd. \nvs. \nITO \n43 \ne) Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh vs. The Income Tax Officer \nOn the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) \nreport might be mandatory on the Assessing \nOfficer but the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the said report if there \nor error in the report of the DVO. He \naccordingly submitted that the matter may be restored back to the \nof being heard to the \nor inconsistencies \nWe have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused \new of the objection of the \nassessee to the stamp duty valuation, the Ld. Assessing Officer \nreferred the matter of the valuation to the District Valuation Officer. \nAs the report was not received till completion of the assessment \nfficer made the addition on the basis of \n\n \nthe stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred \nappeal against the said assessment order which was pending before \nthe Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal \nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee \nfiled a copy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the \nrectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee \nalso filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed \nglaring mistakes in the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the \nsame whereas the \nrectification application\nalready decided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for\nassessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and \nsubmitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the \nAssessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the \nproperty as determined by the DVO\ncounsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble \nAllahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop \nBhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the \nprovisions of section 50C(2)(b) of the Act\nrelying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 \nobserved that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs \nreport. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced \nas under : \n“10. The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr. \nH. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C. \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nthe stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred \nappeal against the said assessment order which was pending before \nthe Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal \nCIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee \ncopy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the \nrectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee \nalso filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed \nin the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the \n Assessing Officer did not act\nrectification application, probably in view of the fact that \ndecided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for\nassessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and \nsubmitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the \nAssessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the \nproperty as determined by the DVO. In support thereof the Ld. \ncounsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble \nAllahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop \nBhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the \nprovisions of section 50C(2)(b) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court\nrelying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 \nobserved that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs \nreport. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced \n10. The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr. \nH. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C. \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n7 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nthe stamp duty valuation of the property. The assessee preferred \nappeal against the said assessment order which was pending before \nthe Ld. CIT(A). The DVO issued his report after filing of the appeal \nCIT(A). On receipt of the DVOs report, the assessee \ncopy same before the Assessing Officer and requested for the \nrectification of the assessment order. Simultaneously, the assessee \nalso filed a copy before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed \nin the DVOs report and therefore he rejected the \nAssessing Officer did not act upon the \nthe fact that issue was \ndecided by the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. counsel for the \nassessee referred to the provision of section 55A of the Act and \nsubmitted that after receipt of the report from the DVO, the \nAssessing Officer is bound to adopt the amount of value of the \nn support thereof the Ld. \ncounsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble \nAllahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Indra Swaroop \nBhatnagar. In the said decision the Hon’ble Court referred to the \nhe Hon’ble High Court \nrelying on the decision of Dr. H. Rahman [1991] 189 ITR 307 \nobserved that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the DVOs \nreport. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced \n10. The above preposition of law has been upheld in the case of Dr. \nH. Rahman (supra) while interpreting the provision of section 50C. \n\n \nIn this section, the provisions of the Wealth\nThis hon'ble court observed that (page 308) :\n\"A reading of the sub\nno option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity \nwith the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the \nvaluation of the asset in question is concerned. This is als\ntaken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of \nIndia [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All).\"\n11. In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality \nof the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that \ngenerally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. \nreport then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to \ninterfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is \nhereby upheld with the reasons mentioned therein.\n5.1 Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision \nof the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai \nThesia (supra), where\nthe reference made u/s 50C of the Act \nOfficer for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is \nobliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate \nmade by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by \nhim. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of \nDinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the \nTribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) \nand Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra)\nChemical(supra,) the Tribunal has held that once \nbeen made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in \nconformity to the estimate given by the \nMurlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report \nof the DVO is binding \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nIn this section, the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act are applicable. \nThis hon'ble court observed that (page 308) : \n\"A reading of the sub-section shows that the Wealth-tax Officer has \nno option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity \nwith the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the \nvaluation of the asset in question is concerned. This is als\ntaken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of \nIndia [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All).\" \n11. In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality \nof the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that \nally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. \nreport then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to \ninterfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is \nhereby upheld with the reasons mentioned therein.” \nLd. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision \nof the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai \nwherein also the Hon’ble High Court \nthe reference made u/s 50C of the Act is made to the Valuation \ner for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is \nobliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate \nmade by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by \nordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of \nDinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the \nTribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) \nand Shri Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh (supra). In case of Jalan \nthe Tribunal has held that once \nbeen made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in \nconformity to the estimate given by the DVO. In the case Shri Anil \nMurlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report \nof the DVO is binding on the AO unless the assessee shows suc\nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n8 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \ntax Act are applicable. \ntax Officer has \nno option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity \nwith the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the \nvaluation of the asset in question is concerned. This is also the view \ntaken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of \n11. In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality \nof the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that \nally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the D. V. O. \nreport then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to \ninterfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is \nLd. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision \nof the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ravjibhai Nagjibhai \nalso the Hon’ble High Court held that once \nto the Valuation \ner for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is \nobliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate \nmade by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by \nordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dipika \nDinesh Kocharekar (supra) also followed the decision of the \nTribunal in the case of Jalan Chemicals Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra) \nn case of Jalan \nthe Tribunal has held that once reference has \nbeen made to the DVO, the Assessing Officer has to proceed in \n. In the case Shri Anil \nMurlidhar Deshmukh (supra), the Tribunal has held that the report \nthe AO unless the assessee shows such \n\n \nglaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel \nreferred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however \nthe Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention \nof the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is \nas under: \n“5. In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct. \nReport of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub\nsection 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the \nprovisions contained in sub\nunder sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or \nassessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub\nsection (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such \nauthority shall be taken as \nreceived or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has \nrightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court \nin CIT v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar \n213 Taxman 52/30 taxmann.com 293\nsimilar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal \nclear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report \nthen the same is binding'. It is thus cle\nis binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring \nmistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by \nthe ld. CIT(A), in principle, on this score.\n6. Now, I turn to the specific objections of the ass\nreport of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO \nconsidered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/\nRs. 15614/- \ndetermined the fair market value of the proper\np.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself \nto the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair \nmarket value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed \nby the ld. DR.\n7. I do not find a\napparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the \npaper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 \nand 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee \nsold its property on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the \nfair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, \nlocation, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was \ntaken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nglaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel \nreferred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however \nthe Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention \nof the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is \n5. In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct. \nReport of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub\nsection 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the \nprovisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained \nsection (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or \nassessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub\nsection (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such \nauthority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration \nreceived or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has \nrightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court \nin CIT v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar [2012] 349 ITR 210/[2013] \n213 Taxman 52/30 taxmann.com 293 in which case also the \nsimilar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal \nclear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report \nthen the same is binding'. It is thus clear that the report of the DVO \nis binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring \nmistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by \nthe ld. CIT(A), in principle, on this score. \n6. Now, I turn to the specific objections of the assessee against the \nreport of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO \nconsidered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/\n and Rs. 15714/- per square metre respectively, but \ndetermined the fair market value of the property at Rs. 18,808/\np.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself \nto the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair \nmarket value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed \nby the ld. DR. \n7. I do not find any substance in the argument of the ld. AR. It is \napparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the \npaper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 \nand 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee \nperty on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the \nfair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, \nlocation, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was \ntaken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n9 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nglaring mistake in such valuation. In that case, the Ld. counsel \nreferred to the various mistakes in the order of the DVO however \nthe Tribunal after examining such mistakes rejected the contention \nof the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced \n5. In my opinion, the argument of the ld. AR is not fully correct. \nReport of the DVO is binding on the AO in terms of sub-section (3) of \nsection 50C of the Act, which mandates that : 'Subject to the \n(2), where the value ascertained \nsection (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or \nassessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-\nsection (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such \nthe full value of the consideration \nreceived or accruing as a result of the transfer'. The ld. CIT(A) has \nrightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court \n349 ITR 210/[2013] \nin which case also the \nsimilar proposition has been reiterated by holding that : 'it is crystal \nclear that generally, when the A.O. has obtained the D.V.O. Report \nar that the report of the DVO \nis binding on the AO, unless the assessee shows some glaring \nmistakes in such valuation. I, therefore, uphold the stand taken by \nessee against the \nreport of the DVO. Firstly, the ld. AR submitted that the DVO \nconsidered three sale instances with varying rates of Rs. 10900/-, \nper square metre respectively, but \nty at Rs. 18,808/- \np.s.m. It was submitted that the DVO should have restricted himself \nto the rates as per the sale instances rather than increasing the fair \nmarket value of the property beyond such rates. This was opposed \nny substance in the argument of the ld. AR. It is \napparent from sale instances noted by the DVO on page 38 of the \npaper book that these sales took place on 18.07.2011, 31.03.2011 \nand 19.03.2011 respectively. As against such dates, the assessee \nperty on 23.11.2012. The DVO has simply increased the \nfair market value of the sale instances considering the time lag, \nlocation, shape and size etc. of the property. Such an objection was \ntaken by assessee before the DVO, who rightly dealt with the same \n\n \nvide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair \nmarket value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines \nissued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my \nconsidered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only\nstarting point for determining the fair market value of any property, \nwhich need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts \nand circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the \nrelevant factors, such as, time lag, location, \nproperty and future potential etc. need to be considered before \ndetermining the fair market value of the property as on the date of \nsale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the \ninstant case, I am satisfied that the\nfair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into \naccount the cumulative effect of all the germane factors.\n8. The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee \nwas small in size and no\nshould have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this \nTribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair \nmarket value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy \nsale. This objec\nthe DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he \nestimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, \nsize and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not \nstand any further legal scrutiny.\n9. Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in \nrespect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the \nproperty should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, \nthis factor has not been co\nmuch as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the \nproperty by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is \nreference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. \nSince no litigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be \nno relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The \nDVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while \ndealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no \nthis contention as well, which is hereby repelled.\n5.2 In view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is \nsettled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation \nadopted by the DVO and he was required to pass \nconformity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. \nCIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair \nmarket value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines \nissued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my \nconsidered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only\nstarting point for determining the fair market value of any property, \nwhich need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts \nand circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the \nrelevant factors, such as, time lag, location, shape and size of the \nproperty and future potential etc. need to be considered before \ndetermining the fair market value of the property as on the date of \nsale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the \ninstant case, I am satisfied that the DVO was correct in determining \nfair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into \naccount the cumulative effect of all the germane factors.\n8. The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee \nwas small in size and not in proper shape and hence reduction \nshould have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this \nTribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair \nmarket value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy \nsale. This objection raised by assessee has also been dealt with by \nthe DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he \nestimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, \nsize and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not \nand any further legal scrutiny. \n9. Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in \nrespect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the \nproperty should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, \nthis factor has not been correctly projected by the assessee in as \nmuch as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the \nproperty by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is \nreference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. \nlitigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be \nno relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The \nDVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while \ndealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no \nthis contention as well, which is hereby repelled.” \nIn view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is \nsettled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation \nadopted by the DVO and he was required to pass \nformity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. \nCIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n10 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nide para 8.2 of his report by mentioning that he arrived at the fair \nmarket value as on the date of valuation as per valuation guidelines \nissued by DIT and considering other relevant factors. In my \nconsidered opinion, sale instances noted by a DVO can only be a \nstarting point for determining the fair market value of any property, \nwhich need necessary modifications depending on the peculiar facts \nand circumstances of the property which has to be valued. All the \nshape and size of the \nproperty and future potential etc. need to be considered before \ndetermining the fair market value of the property as on the date of \nsale. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the \nDVO was correct in determining \nfair market value of the property in his calculation after taking into \naccount the cumulative effect of all the germane factors. \n8. The next objection taken by the ld. AR is that plot of the assessee \nt in proper shape and hence reduction \nshould have been carried out. In the considered opinion of this \nTribunal, if the size of a plot is small, it is natural that its fair \nmarket value will be higher because of the potentiality of its easy \ntion raised by assessee has also been dealt with by \nthe DVO in a cumulative way, in para 8.2 of his report, when he \nestimated the value by considering the 'time lag, location, shape, \nsize and future potential' of the plot. This objection, thus, does not \n9. Next objection of the ld. AR is that litigation was going on in \nrespect of the property sold and hence, fair market value of the \nproperty should have been scaled down. In my considered opinion, \nrrectly projected by the assessee in as \nmuch as the litigation was prevalent at the time of purchase of the \nproperty by the assessee, which got settled there and then. There is \nreference to some litigation after the instant sale of property also. \nlitigation was pending as on the date of sale, there can be \nno relevance of any future litigation in the valuation of property. The \nDVO has rightly noted this fact in para 8.2 of his report while \ndealing with the objection (1) of the assessee. There is no force in \nIn view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, it is \nsettled that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the valuation \nadopted by the DVO and he was required to pass the order in \nformity with such valuation. But in the instant case, the Ld. \nCIT(A) who has rejected the valuation carried out by the DVO in \n\n \nview of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/\nRs.13,452/-. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have \ntaken a bigger sample for \none of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) \nhas rejected the said report. \nthe Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by th\nAuthorities \nfor \nsustaining \nthe \naddition\nopportunity of being heard to the DVO\npower of the enhancement \nthe report of the DVO he should have provided opportunit\nheard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection\ncould have decided the valuation of the property. \nCo-ordinate Bench decision in case of\nITO (2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation \nreport is not binding upon appellate authorities.\nHon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s\nChitta vs. ITO [2019] 49 ITCD 121 (MAD) held \nbound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO \nreport. The relevant finding of\nreproduced as under:\n15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authori\nAssessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also \nvide Section 131\nReport of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nview of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/\n. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have \nbigger sample for estimating rate. In our opinion, this being \none of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) \nhas rejected the said report. But we do not agree with the finding of \nthe Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by th\nfor \nsustaining \nthe \naddition \nwithout \nproviding \nopportunity of being heard to the DVO. The Ld. CIT(A)\npower of the enhancement of addition, if he was not satisfied with \nthe report of the DVO he should have provided opportunit\nheard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection\nhave decided the valuation of the property. We find that \nordinate Bench decision in case of Suresh C. Mehta vs. \n(2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation \nreport is not binding upon appellate authorities.\nHon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s Jagannathan Sailaja \n19] 49 ITCD 121 (MAD) held that ld. CIT(A) is duty \nbound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO \nThe relevant finding of Hon’ble Madras High Court (supra) is \nreproduced as under: \n15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authori\nAssessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also \nSection 131 of the Act and, therefore, the Valuation \nReport of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n11 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nview of a high variation in the rate ranging from Rs.1,799/- to \n. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the DVO should have \nIn our opinion, this being \none of the glaring mistake in the report of the DVO, the Ld. CIT(A) \ne do not agree with the finding of \nthe Ld. CIT(A) in adopting the rate circulated by the Stamp Duty \nwithout \nproviding \n. The Ld. CIT(A), having \nif he was not satisfied with \nthe report of the DVO he should have provided opportunity of being \nheard to the DVO and after taking his comments and objection, he \nWe find that the \nSuresh C. Mehta vs. \n(2013) 35 taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai) held that valuation \nreport is not binding upon appellate authorities. Furthern the \nJagannathan Sailaja \nthat ld. CIT(A) is duty \nbound to consider point to point objection of assessee over DVO \nMadras High Court (supra) is \n15. It is undoubted that both the Appellate Authority and the \nAssessing Authority, in law, had powers of a Civil Court also \nof the Act and, therefore, the Valuation \nReport of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as the \n\n \npresumption under \nMarket Value has to be treated as an evidence or \npresumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in \naccordance with law.\n16. A bare reading of Scheme of \nshow that Assessee can object to\nSection 50C (1) \nobjections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital \nAsset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by\nauthorities. \nThe \nAssessee \ncannot \nbe \ndenied \nan \nopportunity \nto \nraise \nhis \nobjections \neven \nagainst \nthe \npresumptive Fair Market Value under \nor Report of DVO under \nAuthority or the Appellate Authorities, whose \npowers are co-extensive wi\ncannot refuse to meet those objections point by point.\n17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of \nassessment in the \nprinciples of natural justice and the same has not been denied \nby presumptive provisions, such as \nseveral other provisions in the scheme of the Act.\n \n 18. In the present facts not\nCIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, \ncould either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \npresumption under Section 50C of the Act about the Fair \nMarket Value has to be treated as an evidence or \npresumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in \naccordance with law. \n16. A bare reading of Scheme of Section 50C of the Act would \nshow that Assessee can object to presumptive value as per \n and, therefore, it is only after hearing the \nobjections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital \nAsset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by\nauthorities. \nThe \nAssessee \ncannot \nbe \ndenied \nan \nopportunity \nto \nraise \nhis \nobjections \neven \nagainst \nthe \npresumptive Fair Market Value under Section 50C (1)\nor Report of DVO under 50C (2) of the Act and the Assessing \nAuthority or the Appellate Authorities, whose \nextensive with those of the Assessing Authority, \ncannot refuse to meet those objections point by point.\n17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of \nassessment in the Income Tax Act has it at the root the \nnciples of natural justice and the same has not been denied \nby presumptive provisions, such as Section 50C \nseveral other provisions in the scheme of the Act. \n18. In the present facts noted above, we are of the opinion that \nCIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, \ncould either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n12 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nof the Act about the Fair \nMarket Value has to be treated as an evidence or a legal \npresumption, which is open to be rebutted by the Assessee in \nof the Act would \npresumptive value as per \nand, therefore, it is only after hearing the \nobjections of the Assessee, the Fair Market Value of the Capital \nAsset as per 'Guidance Value' can be determined by the \nauthorities. \nThe \nAssessee \ncannot \nbe \ndenied \nan \nopportunity \nto \nraise \nhis \nobjections \neven \nagainst \nthe \nSection 50C (1) of the Act \nof the Act and the Assessing \nAuthority or the Appellate Authorities, whose \nth those of the Assessing Authority, \ncannot refuse to meet those objections point by point. \n17. The Fair Assessment Procedure under the scheme of \nhas it at the root the \nnciples of natural justice and the same has not been denied \n of the Act and \n \ned above, we are of the opinion that \nCIT (A), where, for the first time, the Report of DVO came up, \ncould either deal with the objections of Assessee himself or \n\n \nremit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing \nwith the said objections in an appropriate and detailed \nmanner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been \nundertaken by him in the present case.\n19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to \nthe Assessing Authority even at t\nbelatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said \npurpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the \norders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned \nTribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing \nto decide both the questions about the valuation of the property \nto be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee \nagainst the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as \nthe presumptive value under \ncompute 'Fair Market Value' under \nthe Act and the relief under \n \n20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law \nframed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and \nagainst the Revenue.\n 21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the \nevidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority \nhas the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of \nSection 131 of the Act b\nany person, including any officer of a banking company or \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nremit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing \nd objections in an appropriate and detailed \nmanner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been \nundertaken by him in the present case. \n19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to \nthe Assessing Authority even at this stage, even though \nbelatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said \npurpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the \norders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned \nTribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing \nto decide both the questions about the valuation of the property \nto be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee \nagainst the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as \nthe presumptive value under Section 50C of the Act and then \ncompute 'Fair Market Value' under Section 48\nthe Act and the relief under Section 54F of the Act.\n20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law \nframed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and \nRevenue. \n21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the \nevidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority \nhas the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of \nof the Act by way of enforcing the attendance of \nany person, including any officer of a banking company or \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n13 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nremit the matter back to the Assessing Authority for dealing \nd objections in an appropriate and detailed \nmanner. But, such an exercise does not seem to have been \n19. Therefore, we are constrained to remit the matter back to \nhis stage, even though \nbelatedly, and allow the Appeal of the Assessee for the said \npurpose. We, accordingly, allow this Appeal and set aside the \norders passed by the learned CIT (A) and also the learned \nTribunal and remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority \nto decide both the questions about the valuation of the property \nto be taken while dealing with the objections of the assessee \nagainst the Report of Departmental Valuation Officer as well as \nof the Act and then \nSection 48 of \nof the Act. \n20. In view of the above, the Substantial Questions of Law \nframed above are answered in favour of the Assessee and \n21. Before parting, we may say, that for weighing the \nevidence by the Assessing Authority, the Assessing Authority \nhas the powers of a Civil Court conferred upon him by virtue of \ny way of enforcing the attendance of \nany person, including any officer of a banking company or \n\n \nexamining him on oath, production of documents, discovery \nand inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing \nwith the aforesaid piece of evidence, name\nValuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to \ncontrovert the presumptive value under \nthe Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers \nconferred upon him.\n5.3 In the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have \nbeen pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. \nthe facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of \nsubstantial justice, we feel it appropriat\nto the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an \nopportunity of being \nby the ld CIT(A) and seek\ndecide the issue after \nheard, both to the assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The \ngrounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical \npurposes. \n6. \nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for \nstatistical purposes. \n Order pronounced in the open Court on \n \n \nSd/- \n(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nexamining him on oath, production of documents, discovery \nand inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing \nwith the aforesaid piece of evidence, namely, Departmental \nValuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to \ncontrovert the presumptive value under Section 50C\nthe Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers \nferred upon him. \nIn the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have \nbeen pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. \nthe facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of \nsubstantial justice, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back \nto the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an \nopportunity of being heard to the Ld. DVO on the mistake observed \nand seek a revised report if required so and then \ndecide the issue after providing adequate opportunity of being \nthe assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The \ngrounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical \nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for \n \nOrder pronounced in the open Court on 17/03/2025.\n \n(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) \n(OM PRAKASH KANT\nJUDICIAL MEMBER \nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n14 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nexamining him on oath, production of documents, discovery \nand inspection, as the case may be. Therefore, while dealing \nly, Departmental \nValuation Officer's Report or in allowing the Assessee to \nSection 50C of the Act, \nthe Assessing Authority can very well exercise the said powers \nIn the instant case before us also the glaring mistakes have \nbeen pointed out by the ld CIT(A) in valuation report. Therefore, in \nthe facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of \ne to restore the matter back \nto the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to him to provide an \non the mistake observed \na revised report if required so and then \nadequate opportunity of being \nthe assessee as well as Assessing Officer. The \ngrounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical \nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for \n/03/2025. \n \nSd/- \nOM PRAKASH KANT) \nACCOUNTANT MEMBER \n\n \nMumbai; \nDated: 17/03/2025 \nRahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. \n \nCopy of the Order forwarded to\n1. \n The Appellant \n2. \nThe Respondent. \n3. \nCIT \n4. \nDR, ITAT, Mumbai \n5. \nGuard file. \n \n \n \n \n//True Copy// \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol\nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024\n \n \nCopy of the Order forwarded to : \n \n \n \n \n \n BY ORDER,\n \n \n \n \n(Assistant Registrar)\n \n \n \n \n ITAT, Mumbai\nMr. Vivek Omprakash Abrol \n15 \nITA No. 5883/MUM/2024 \nBY ORDER, \n(Assistant Registrar) \nITAT, Mumbai \n"