Mohd. Nasir Ayub, Kanpur vs Assessee

Mohd. Nasir Ayub, Vs A.C.I.T.-3, 40/121, Hospital Road, Parade, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:ACFPA8024P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri K. C. Meena, D. R. Date of hearing 20/11/2014 Date of pronouncement 08/01/2015

ORDER

PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 27/08/2012 for the assessment year 2008- 2009.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

"1. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs.22,16,000/- u/s 50C of Income Tax Act without considering the report of departmental valuation officer as well as the report of Registered Valuer submitted by the assessee.

2. Because, in any case the addition is highly excessive considering the facts of the case, inter alia that the DVO's report is based on incorrect rates of valuation of CPWD V/s UP PWD, self supervision charges, etc. have also not been considered in the report and there are serious anomalies in the valuation report which cannot be accepted as well.

2 3. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) did not appreciate the facts of the case and submission/objection of the assessee and passed an ex-party order without proper opportunity of hearing being granted to the assessee.

4. Because, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is devoid of facts and is arbitrary.

5. Because, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and statement of facts may be considered as part of these grounds of appeal."

3. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that in the present case, the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering D.V.O.'s report because at the time of assessment on 31/12/2010, the D.V.O.'s report was not available, which is dated 25/05/2011 available on pages 10 to 12 of the paper book. He also submitted that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and therefore, the report of the D.V.O. was not considered by him also. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the present case, the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer on 31/12/2010 because the same was getting time barred and report of D.V.O. was not available till that time. The report of D.V.O. is now available and from the same, we find that the first report of D.V.O. is available from pages 10 to 12 of the paper book dated 25/05/2011 and the second report of the D.V.O. is available on pages 14 to 21 is dated 08/07/2011. As per the second report of D.V.O., the value was determined by him at Rs.19.27 lacs. Since this report was not available before the Assessing Officer and the same was not considered by him, we feel it fit and proper that the matter should go to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after considering the report of the 3

D.V.O. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the matter afresh.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:08/01/2015. *C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1.The Appellant 2.The Respondent. 3.Concerned CIT 4.The CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar