1. law, govt and politics

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण,आई,
आई खंडपीठ मुंबई
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - ‘I’ BENCH.
सव ौी ौी राजेि,ले
ि लेखा सदःय एवं "ववेक वमा, याियक सदःय
Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Vivek Varma,Judicial Member
आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.2187/Mum/2006,िनधा
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year-2001-02
Pradeep G. Vora,
Rungta House, 68, Nepeansea
Road, Mumbai-400006
ITO 16(2)(1) (Present ACIT-16(2),
Vs Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia
Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai-400034
PAN: AAAPV3259J
(अपीलाथ&/ Appellant)
(ू(यथ& / Respondent)
िनधा)रती ओर से / Assessee by
: Aarti Vissanji
राजःव क, ओर से/Revenue by
: Shri P.K.Shukla/O.P.Singh &
Ajay K. Srivastava
: 10-04-2014
सुनवाई क, तार-ख/ Date of Hearing
घोषणा क, तार-ख / Date of Pronouncement : 30-05-2014
आ यकर अ िधिनयम,
िधिनयम 1961 क, धारा ( 1 ) 254 के अतग त आ दे श
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act)
Per Rajendra,AM ले खा सदःय राजे ि के अनु सार:
ार
Challenging the order dt.31.01.2006 of the CIT(A)-XVI,Mumbai,Assessee has raised following
Grounds of Appeal:
1)Valuation of land at Boat Club Road, Pune:
a)Value as on the date of conversion of land into stock-in-trade on 12.06.1995:
i)The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the valuation of the land at Boat Club Road, Pune
as on the date of conversion into stock-in-trade on 12.06.1995 at Rs.12,82,41.000/-as per DVOs
report.
b)Valuation of part of the land converted into stock-in-trade in January 2001:
i)The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the valuation of part of the land converted into
stock-in-trade in January2001 at Rs. 94,79,000/-(as per valuation report obtained by the appellant
from the approved valuer) instead of directing the assessing officer to adopt valuation at Rs.
2,04,11,552/- i.e. in proportion of the area which bears to the valuation of land on 12.06. 1995 at
Rs.12,82,41,000/-.
2)Apportionment of Preliminary Costs (Rs.36,87,001-) &Common Amenities (Rs.76,96, 000/-):
a)The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming that the aforesaid costs should be apportioned /
allocated proportionately to Building A in the ratio of Bldg. A i.e. 25,671 sq. ft. to total saleable
area i.e.1,15,000 sq.ft. instead of attributing the entire above expenditure to Building A.
3)Apportionment of Interest cost Rs. 69,69,203/-:a)The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming
that the aforesaid interest cost should be apportioned / allocated proportionately to Building A in
the ratio of Bldg. A i.e. 25,671 sq. ft.to total saleable area i.e. 1,15,000 sq. ft. instead of attributing
the entire above expenditure to Building A.
b)Alternatively and without prejudice to the above the learned CIT (A) ought to have accepted the
alternative argument of the appellant for allowing the interest cost of Rs. 46,08543/- incurred up
to assessment year 2000-01 against Bldg. A and interest cost for the year under appeal of Rs. 23,
60,660/-to be apportioned between Bldg. A & B equally such that interest cost attributable to and
allowable against Bldg.A amounts to Rs. 57,88,873/-{Rs. 46,08,543 + Rs. 11,80,330(50% of
Rs.23,60,660)].
4)Cost of settlement with tenant Rs. 40,00,000/-:
a)The learned assessing officer has erred in ignoring the submissions of the appellant, in
www.taxguru.in
2
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
confirming the disallowance of the cost of settlement with tenant of Rs. 40,00,000/- treating the
same as capital expenditure.
The assessee had also raised following additional grounds:
5.The learned Assessing Officer erred in making a reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A of
the Income Tax Act,1961 for the purpose of determining fair market value of the property bearing
FP No.202,CTS No.13/1 and 13/2,Boat Club Road,Sangamwadi Town Planning Scheme,
Pune as on 15.05.1995 for the purpose of computing capital gain u/s 45(2) of the Income Tax Act,
1961.
During the course of hearing before us,Ground no.4 was not pressed by the assessee,hence,same
stands dismissed as not pressed.
Brief history and facts of the case:
2.Assessee,an individual,filed his return of income on 23.10.2001showing income of (-)Rs.2,34,
47,199/-.He had disclosed business losses from his proprietary concerns(M/s.Vora Enterprises)at
Rs.(-)7,58,09,273/-and(M/s.Vora Associates),at Rs.(-)2,87,742/-.In the return he also admitted
long term capital gain at Rs.5,25,80,036/-.AO finalised the assessment u/s.143(3)of the Act,on
30.03.2004,determining his income at Rs. 3,35,38,164/-.
2.1.During the assessment proceedings AO found that the assessee owned a plot of land at Boat
Club Road,Pune admeasuring 9,926.77 sq. mtrs.,that out of that plot 650 sq. mts.of land was
retained by him and balance 9276 sq. mts.’plot was converted into stock-in-trade on 12.06.1995 at
Fair Market Value(FMV)at Rs.31,35,03,800/-as per Valuation Report of a approved valuerM/s.Pundlik & Pundlik,that as per the Valuation Report the plot was held by the assessee as his
capital asset,that he decided to develop the said property commercially and for that purpose he
entered into three agreements(dtd.7.09.1995,30.11.1998 and 25.01.2001)with a project manager,
namely,The Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd.(GESCO).He further found that the assessee was
following part project completion method and was offering income on the year of completion of
building,that during the year under appeal,Building A was completed as per completion certifica te dt.11.10.2000 of the Pune Municipal Corporation.It was claimed before the AO that the entire
project was to be financed by the project manager on which it was to be paid interest,that the
assessee was required to pay the project management fees based on the sale price realised on sale
of flats.
As per the AO,the assessee had offered income by way of capital gain u/s.45(2) of the Act.For the
purpose of calculating capital gain,it had adopted indexed cost at Rs.51,99,000/-with reference to
FMV as on 01.04.1981.Indexed cost was based on the report of a registered valuer.AO observed
that the assessee had disclosed the total saleable area of the entire project at 1,15,000
sq.ft,wheresas saleable area of Building A was disclosed at 25,671 sq. ft.,that he had apportioned
the expenses in certain ratio.
After considering the facts of the case and arguments of the assessee,the AO estimated the value
of the property on 12.06.1995 at Rs.29,51,916/- and at Rs.5,88,875/-as on 01.04.1981.He was of
the opinion that the value of the property,converted into stock-in-trade,during the year was to be
taken at Rs.4, 69,843/-.The AO further considered the total project area at 1,67,000 sq.ft.(1,15,
000+52,000 out of TDR)and apportioned various expenses in proportion of 25,671:1, 67,000.The
AO also considered certain expenses, amounting to Rs 1,60,03,000/- and interest of Rs 69,69,
203/-for the entire project as against assessee’s claim of charging the same entirely to Building
A.Accordingly,the AO made necessary adjustment.He also reduced an amount of Rs.71,80,000/from the total construction cost being credit received on settlement with the Project Manager in
A.Y.2003-04.AO made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) on 19.03.2004
to find out the Fair Market Value(FVM) of the plot of land as on 12.06.1995 as well as on 01. 04.
1981 for computing capital gains.
www.taxguru.in
3
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate
Authority(FAA).Before him a copy of the valuation report,dt.11.03.2005, prepared by the DVO
and his objections on the same were filed.Assessee also pointed out some errors and omissions in
the assessment order.FAA directed the AO to submit a report on assessee’s objections vide this
office letter dt.20. 09.2005 and reminder dt.25.10.2005.As there was no response from the office
of the AO,FAA contacted the DVO to examine assessee’s objections and submit his comments.
The DVO personally appeared before the FAA for hearing on 29.12.2005 and submitted reply. A
copy of DVO’s comments, contained in his letter dt.29.12.2005,was provided to the assessee.
Further objections were raised by the assessee in this regard.
FAA specifically asked the assessee that whether he had any objection to issue of direction to the
AO for adoption of fair market /value of the property as on 01.04.1981 and as on 12.06.1995 on
the basis of DVO’s report.The AR of the assessee objected to such proposal stating that DVO’s
report was not correct.He further stated that objections to the report had already been submitted
earlier during the course of appeal which should be considered.
Here,it would be useful to go back to the early history of the plot of land in question,as it was
subject matter of the Urban Land Ceiling Act,1976,(ULCA)applied to land area in excess of 500
sq.mts.Assessee’s father had urban area of 9926.7759 sq. mts.As per the order,dt. 27.09.1990,of
the competent authority under the ULCA,the surplus land in the case of the assessee was
determined at 1609.10 sq.mts.The DVO adopted the said portion of the plot for valuation of the
property as on 01.04.1981.The assessee objected to the same stating that appeal against the order
of the competent authority was pending and finally the matter was decided in his favour and
hence ultimately no area was found to as surplus land under the ULCA.The assessee in his further
objection dt.30.12.2005 stated that whatever was decided in 1982 by the competent authority
should not have been considered final without considering the result of the pending appeal.After
considering the objections of the assessee and reply by the DVO,FAA held that area covered by
ULCA as non-vacant ,as on 01.04.1981,was to be taken at 1,689.10 sq.mtrs.
For the purpose of valuation of the property as on 15.05.1995, the DVO had considered the extent
of surplus land at 474.26 sq. mts.The assessee objected to the same stating that appeal filed by
him was finally decided in his favour and the entire land was declared non-vacant under the
ULCA.The DVO,in his report dt.29.12.2005,pointed out that as on the date of conversion of land
into stock-in-trade the order dt.20.04.1995 under the ULCA was the only order available and
therefore,it was considered for determining the area of non vacant land.The DVO explained that
appellant’s claim to the contrary was based on subsequent clarification dt. 21.05.1997 issued by
the Govt. Maharashtra and by that time the assessee had already entered into agreement on
07.09.1995 when the extent of surplus land, stood at 474.26 sq.mts.FAA,after considering the
submissions of AO and the DVO held that surplus land as on 15.05.1995 was to be determined at
474.26 mts.
The assessee also objected to the reduction of 10% from the land area for RG (Recreational
Ground) i.e. 992.67 sq. mts. while valuing the property as on 15.05.1995 made.He argued that that
such reduction was incorrect and to that extent,the valuation done by the DVO was less,that while
calculating the area the entire plot should have been considered.FAA rejected the objection raised
by the assessee.Other objections raised by the AO were also rejected.
With regard to the reference made to the DVO u/s.55A of the Act,for determination of FMV of
the property of the assessee as on 01.04.1981 and 15.05.1995 and the report prepared by the
DVO,FAA held that the DVO was the competent and statutory authority for the purpose of
sec.55A of the Act,that the FMV of the property on the aforesaid two dates as determined by him
vide his report dt.11.03.2005 had to be accepted in preference to the fair market value determined
by the AO and the registered value.
In short,he rejected all the objection raised by the assessee and held that value adopted by the
DVO on both the relevant dates i.e.01.04.1981 and 15.05.1995 was the correct figure for determi -
www.taxguru.in
4
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
ning the value of the plot of land in question.
3.Additional ground raised by the assessee,challenges the reference made by the AO to the DVO,
u/s.55A of the Act to for determining Fair Market Value(FMV)on the date of conversion for
computing capital gain.An application was filed by the assessee to admit the additional ground.
Before us,Departmental Representative (DR)objected the admission of additional evidence and
argued that the assessee had not raised the said ground either before the AO or before the First
Appellate Authority (FAA),that he should not be allowed to argue the issue of reference made by
the AO to the valuation officer,before the Tribunal for the first time.Authorised Representative
(AR)submitted that additional ground was vital for deciding the main issue,that it was only a legal
ground and new facts were not to be investigated. In his support he placed reliance on the
following cases:
a)National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC),
b)Ahmedabad Electricity v CIT, 199 ITR 351(Bom-FB),
3.1.First we would like to take up the issue of admission of Additional ground.Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal(Tribunal),the last fact finding authority,is supposed to decide the disputes
between the Sovereign and the citizens,so that correct tax liabilities can be determined.For that
purpose it adjudicates the grounds of appeal filed before it.It may happen that the assessee or the
AO may raise an Additional Ground (AG)of appeal and Tribunal has to decide it.The case before
us,is one of such cases,where AG has been raised.As stated earlier,AR and DR had argued in
favour of and against the admission of AG.Considering the contentions of both the sides,we are of
the opinion that it would be useful to mention the historical background and development of law
of AG,as well as the justification of admitting or not admitting the same.
It is said that the power of the Tribunal to allow an additional plea/additional evidence originates
from the principle that substantial justice should not suffer because of non consideration of an AG
or an additional evidence.As per the established judicial norms Tribunal has to allow/ disallow the
additional plea and additional evidence after applying its judicial mind.Rule11 of ITAT Appellate
Rules,1963,successor to the Rule 21 of the of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1946 deals with the
admission of an AG.Both these rules are more are less similar to the provisions of rule 2 of Order
XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.Rule 2 of the said order reads as under:
2 .Grounds which may be taken in appealThe appellant shall not except by leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of
objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal,but the Appellate Court in deciding the
appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objections set forth in the memorandum of appeal
or taken by leave of the Court under this rule:
Provided that the Court shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may
be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground.
The first important matter relating to admission of an AG was decided in the year 1937 by the
Hon’ble Chief Court of Oudh,while adjudicating the matter of Behari Lall-Ramchandra (5ITR
417).It was held by the Hon’ble Court that the view;that AG of appeal could not be filed after the
expiry of the period prescribed by Act for filing an appeal;was an erroneous view,that such
grounds dated back to the date of the original appeal,of which when admitted,they would become
a part of the appeal,that AG could be filed by the appellant and entertained by the appellate
authorities in the exercise of their discretion at any time before the appeal is decided,that if the
authorities exercised their discretion in refusing to entertain an AG in an improper manner,the
discretion would be open to corrections,that the AG.s were intended to question the principle on
which the assessment had been based by the AO,that the objection raised in those grounds went to
www.taxguru.in
5
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
the root of the assessment.
Second important case about the AG is the case of Byramji & Co.In that matter Hon’ble Nagpur
High Court had deliberated upon rule 21 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1946.Hon’ble Court (11
ITR 286)held as under:
“The Appellate Tribunal may grant leave to urge an additional ground of appeal even though it
has not been added to the memorandum of appeal by means of a proper amendment.There is also
nothing in the rules which provides that an application for leave to urge an additional ground
should be stamped or verified.
Though it is for the Appellate Tribunal to exercise its discretion in granting leave to urge an
additional ground of appeal,this discretion has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily,and if
it is found that it has been exercised arbitrarily, such exercise of discretion can be interfered with
by the High Court.
Where the additional ground of appeal sought to be urged was a question of law which did not
involve any further investigation into facts upon which the Appellate Tribunal refused to grant
leave to urge it was that this new ground was not added to the memorandum of appeal by a proper
amendment and the application for leave was neither stamped nor verified.
“This rule is practically in the same words as Order 41, rule 2of the Civil Procedure Code.It only
requires permission of the Tribunal to urge an additional ground. There is nothing in the rule
which says that the additional ground has to be added to the memorandum of appeal by means of a
proper amendment. Whether to grant leave or not is left to the discretion of the Tribunal. ………
Under these circumstances our answer to the question referred to us for decision is that the Bench
did not properly use its discretion in not permitting the applicants to take the additional grounds
not raised in the memo of appeal and not added to it by means of a proper amendment.”
Hon’ble jurisdictional High in the matter of Hazarimal Nagji & Co.(46 ITR 1168) has held that
an AG can be raised before the Tribunal,even if same was not argued before the departmental
authorities.Observations of the Hon’ble Court read as under :
“The powers of the Appellate Tribunal are similar to the powers of the appellate court under the
Civil Procedure Code.In so far as a respondent only wants to maintain the decree of the lower
court which is in his favour,he is entitled to support it on fresh grounds if he can do so, and the
appellate court also will have jurisdiction to permit him to do so, provided that the fresh grounds
which he wants to urge do not require a further investigation into facts which are not already on
record and are not based on facts which were neither alleged nor admitted nor proved and which
the other side was never called upon to meet in the lower court.”
Similarly,in the case of Oswal Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills.(129ITR761),one of the
question raised by the Department before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was that
the Tribunal was in error in law in allowing the AG to be raised by the assessee for the first time
before it,i.e.at the time of hearing the appeal.Dismissing the appeal Hon’ble Court held as under:
“An additional ground can be raised at the Tribunal at admission stage in view of r. 11 of the
Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.”
As per the courts the powers of the Tribunal,in dealing with appeals have been expressed in the
widest possible terms.The words pass such order as the Tribunal thinks fit include all powers. But
the word thereon in section 254 of the Act,restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subjectmatter of the appeal.There is nothing in the Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination
of questions raised before the departmental authorities.All questions,whether of law or fact,which
relates to the assessment of income,might be raised before the Tribunal.It has the power to pass
any order it thought fit after giving the parties appropriate opportunity.But,such orders must be
passed on the subject-matter of the appeal.The subject-matter of the appeal must be viewed in the
context and the background of the facts and circumstances of each case.
3.2.Certain principles regarding raising and admission of an AG by the Tribuanl;culled out from
the above discussion and various other decisions of the Hon’ble Courts;can be summarised as
under:
www.taxguru.in
6
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
i).Normally,an assessee;who has not put forward a particular claim or ground before the AO or
the FAA;cannot seek to urge the same before the Tribunal except with its permission.
ii).Tribunal cannot refuse to entertain an AG arbitrarily,but has to consider the reasons given by
the appellant for not urging the new ground before the initial authorities.An order to admit or not
to admit an AG has to be a reasoned or speaking order.
In the matter of Maruti Udyog Ltd.a request was made to the Tribunal for admission of AG.s.The
Tribunal admitted the AG.s, but instead of recording reasons for admitting the AG.s.,observed
that the reasons could be incorporated in the order to be passed in the appeals.A writ petition was
filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to quash the order.Hon’ble Court held that requirement
to record reasons was inherent in the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules,that the Tribunal had to
exercise such discretion judicially and not arbitrarily,that it had discretion in appropriate cases to
allow any party to the appeal to raise a new ground before it,that powers of the Tribunal referable
to rule 11 were judicial in nature and could not be exercised in an arbitrary manner at the pleasure
of the Tribunal,that whether the permission could be given or not depended basically on the facts
of each case,that the reasons were required to be recorded.Accordingly, the Tribunal was directed
to record reasons.(244ITR 303).
iii).If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion, that the reasons given for not urging the points at an
earlier stage are not germane or are unreasonable,it will be well within its discretion in refusing to
entertain the new grounds.
iv).An AG can be filed any time before the hearing is appeal is taken up.There is time limit in the
Act for filing appeals and the appellants are supposed to adhere to that limit.But,if AG.s are filed,
even after the prescribed time-limit for filing of appeal,same are to be adjudicated upon.
v).Rule 11 of the Rules speaks only of leave to raise an AG and the leave may be sought for either
in writing or by an oral prayer.
vi).AG should relate to point of law and should go to root of assessment and should not involve
further investigation into facts.It is said that there cannot be any estoppel against law.So,it is
permissible on the part of the Tribunal to entertain a ground beyond those incorporated in the
memorandum of appeal though the party urging the said ground had neither appealed before it nor
had filed a cross-objection in the appeal filed by the other party.
vii).The question of entertaining an AG by the Tribunal is not a mere question of discretion,but it
involves a question of jurisdiction also.If an assessee files an application for permission to raise
additional grounds of appeal in relation to the subject-matter which is already before the Tribunal
by way of an appeal,the matter will merely rest on the discretion of the Tribunal.
But,where an assessee seeks to bring in new items which had not been questioned by him before
the assessing and appellate authorities and which had nothing to do with the subject-matter of the
appeal before the Tribunal as originally filed by way of additional grounds of appeal,the question
will arise as to whether the Tribunal will have jurisdiction to entertain the additional grounds
without excusing the delay in filing the appeal and hence the Tribunal will be justified in refusing
to excuse the delay in filing such additional grounds of appeal dealing with a new subject-matter.
viii).An assessee is entitled to the claim for further depreciation on the enhanced value of the
assets or other deduction or exemption or relief,as a result of the appeal effect of the decision of
the Supreme Court,in form of an AG.
ix).AG must,relate to the subject-matter of the appeal and in the guise of raising an AG a new
item or subject-matter cannot be allowed to be introduced under rule11.Rules,do not permit an
appellant before the Tribunal to introduce an altogether new subject-matter of appeal,in respect of
which the decision was accepted.
In the matter of Calcutta Discount Company Ltd.,Hon’ble Calcutta High Court found that the
Tribunal had rejected the application and AG mentioned therein,as it was of the opinion same
remained outside the purview of the subject-matter of the appeal.Dismissing the appeal filed by
the assessee,Hon’ble Court held that since the additional grounds did not form part of the subject -
www.taxguru.in
7
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
matter of the appeal,so,no reference to the High Court against that order was permissible.(82 ITR
941).
x).If an AG is raised by an assessee/AO and is admitted the other side should be provided
sufficient opportunity of being heard with regard to such ground.
xi).Tribunal cannot give a finding in respect of the assessment of an year which is not the subject matter of the appeal before it.It can give a finding that the deduction/income does not belong to
the relevant assessment year/years,but though it may incidentally find that the deduction/income
relates to another AY.,it cannot give a finding that the deduction/income belongs to another
specified year.The exception is where an AG has been raised with the leave of the Tribunal.(328
ITR 306).
xii).Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd.,has
laid down that Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal not merely with AG.s.,which are available on
account of change of circumstances or law,but with AG.s.which are available when the return was
filed.The words could not have been raised must be construed liberally and not strictly. There may
be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case must be
considered on its own facts,that in other words,grounds which are not in existence when the return
is filed or when the assessment order is made fall within the second category,viz.,‘where the
ground became available on account of change of circumstances or law’.(349 ITR 336).
3.3.We would like to sum up the discussion by holding that both on principle and on precedent,
there is no reason why the Tribunal must be precluded from handling a point,whether of law or
fact which relate to an assessment,which appertains to the assessee's assessment merely because
nobody else had handled it before or because it had not occurred either to the assessee or to the
Department to raise and urge that point at earlier stages of the proceedings.In the matter under
appeal it is not the case of the DR that necessary facts for deciding the controversy involved in the
additional plea are not available on record.It is also not a case where facts are to be investiga -tedrather it is a pure legal issue that has been raised before us.So,in our opinion,merely because the
plea in the AG was not taken by the assessee before the FAA,it could not be a ground to refuse the
application for permission to raise an AG.So,AG raised by the assessee,is admitted.
4.Now,we would take up the controversy with regard to reference made by the AO for valuation
of the property owned by the assessee at Pune.District valuation officer (DVO) determined the
FMV of the plot as on 01.04.1981 and 12.06.1995 at Rs.45,97,600/- and Rs.12,82,41,000/respectively, whereas the AO took the value of the plot at Rs.29,51,916/-as on the date of
conversion. Before us, AR stated that assessee had raised objection before the FAA about the
report submitted by the DVO, that difference in valuation made by the registered valuer and the
DVO was due to rate of land, that DVO had relied upon the two sale instances which were not
comparable, that objections raised by the assessee were not dealt with by the FAA, that the DVO
had not considered the sale instances relied upon by the assessee, that agreement dated 07.09.1995
with the Project Manager was also not considered by the DVO, that the DVO had not attributed
any value for recreation ground. He relied upon the cases of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah (310 ITR 31)
and Daulat Mohta (360 ITR 680) delivered by the Hon’ble High Courts of Gujarat and Bombay
respectively.DR contented that AO’s reference u/s.55A(b)(ii) covered the situations as in the case
of the assessee where the value of the assets claimed by the assessee was as per its registered
valuer and more than the FMV as on date of conversion, that harmonious construction of the
provisions of section 55A led to section 55A(b) of the Act, that the inflated FMV of the assets on
01.04.1981 reduced taxable long term capital gain, that inflated FMV of the asset as on date of
conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade would reduce the taxable business profit of the
assessee, that AO was empowered to look into and investigate such arrangement.DR relied upon
the decision of Chaturbhuj Vallbhdas HUF(130ITD230).He further argued that judgment of the
www.taxguru.in
8
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court delivered in the case of Puja Prints was not applicable to the
facts of the case under consideration.
4.1.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.It would be useful to
consider the history and background of the section 55A of the Act also.The provisions of the
section were introduced ,w.e.f. 01.01.1973,by the Taxation Laws(Amendment)Act,1972.Section
reads as under
"55A. Reference to Valuation Officer.With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset for the purposes of this Chapter, the AO
may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer(a) in a case where the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate
made by a registered valuer,if the AO is of opinion that the value so claimed is less than its fair market
value ;
(b) in any other case, if the AO is of opinion(i) that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more
than such percentage of the value of the asset as so claimed or by more than such amount as may be
prescribed in this behalf ; or
(ii)that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is
necessary so to
do."
By an amendment,w.e.f. 01.07.2012 ,words "is less than its fair market value" were substituted by
the words "is at variance with its fair market value" .
For better understanding of the purpose of introducing it in the Act,we one has to take note of the
Explanatory Notes to the section.Circular No.96 of 25.11.1972 is relevant in this regard.We
would like to reproduce a portion of the circular and same reads as under:
"Under the new provisions,an Income Tax Officer may refer the valuation of any capital asset to a
VO in a case where the assessee has got the assets valued by a registered valuer and the Income
Tax Officer is of the opinion that the value as estimated by the registered valuer (i.e.,a person
registered as a valuer under section 34AB of the Wealth-tax Act)is less than the fair market value
of the asset.Other cases in which a reference may be made to the VO would be where the Income
Tax Officer is of the opinion that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the assets
as claimed by more than 15 percent of the value claimed or by more than Rs. 25,000, whichever is
less or where, having regard to the nature of the asset and the relevant circumstances, the Incometax Officer considers it necessary to do so. It will be seen that in a case where the assessee has
opted for substitution of the cost of acquisition of an asset by its fair market value as on January
1,1954,the fair market value as claimed by him may be higher than its actual fair market value.The
provisions of section 55A(a) and (b)(i) will therefore, not apply in such a case. It will, however, be
open to the Income-tax Officer to make a reference to the VO under section 55A(b)(ii)."
A perusal of the Memorandum explaining the reasons behind the introduction of the section and
the explanatory notes for introduction of amendment to section w.e.f.01.07.2012 proves that the
section was inserted in the Act with the deliberate object of empowering the AO to find out the
market value of capital assets for the purpose of Chapter IV.In our opinion,intention of the
Legislature is obvious that the AO can make a reference to the DVO for determining the value of
a capital asset.On such reference,the provisions,inter alia,of sub-sections (2)to (6) of section 16A
and sub-sections (3A) and (4) of section 23 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are ipso facto applicable
by extension,as laid down under section 55A of the Act itself .
We are of the opinion that for the purpose of ascertaining the FMV of a capital asset,the statute
has provided two group of cases namely :
(i) the case mentioned at clause (a) above,where the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee
is in accordance with the estimate by the registered valuer ; and
(ii) other cases mentioned at clause (b) above.
In the cases mentioned as (i) above,the AO assumes jurisdiction,when there is a valuation report
in respect of the asset and the assessee adopted the value of the asset in accordance with such
estimation and also if the AO is of the opinion that the value claimed by the assessee is less than
www.taxguru.in
9
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
the FMV.
In other cases mentioned as (ii) above and which are covered by the provisions of clause (b) of
section 55A,the AO is empowered to make a reference to the Valuation Officer, where the AO is
of the opinion that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the assets as claimed by
more than 15 % of the value claimed or by more than Rs. 25,000, wherever is less or where,
having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstance, the AO considers it
necessary to do so.
In other words,section deals with cases where the basis for FMV of the asset is the valuation
report itself and the assessee fails to adopt the value of the asset in accordance with the estimate
of such valuation report and cases where the basis for such FMV of the asset is other than the
valuation report.The other situation envisages the existence of such circumstances,that make
reference necessary.In such a case,nature of the assets and other relevant factors also play a
decisive role.
4.1.We would like to mention the broad principles emerging out of various judicial decisions of
the Hon’ble Courts with regard to reference to be made by the AO to the DVO u/s.55A of the Act:
i).The power of the AO in the course of making an assessment under the Act is wide and, for
obtaining full information,he may make such enquiry as he considers necessary.In the course of
such enquiry,the AO may take the assistance of any person having expertise.But,the AO is not
entitled to make a reference to the VO u/s.55A of the Act.A reference made to a VO u/s.55A has a
definite connotation and a definite statutory effect and,therefore,unless the conditions precede-nt
for making such reference are satisfied,in exercise of his general power of enquiry,the AO cannot
make a reference under the said provision.
ii).Reference to VO u/s. 55A can be made only to ascertain FVM of capital asset for determin- ing
capital gains.Valuation obtained in a case not involving capital gains has no statutory effect.
iii).The AO loses his power in the matter of valuation only where the VO makes a report.If the
VO does not submit his report,the power of valuation has to revert to the AO.Unless the VO sends
his report,there is no bar on the AO 's completing the assessments taking the value of the asset
referred for valuation in the best possible method in the limiting circumstances of the
situation.So,if,till the expiry of limitation,no report of valuation comes from the DVO,the original
power of the AO to value the asset himself revives.
iv).Reference under clause (b)(ii) of section 55A can be made,if the AO is of the opinion that
having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it was necessary so to
do.
In the case of Anant Mills Ltd. a reference under clause (b)(ii) of section 55A of the Act was
made by the AO and the asset in question was a piece of land.Deciding the writ petition filed by
the assessee,Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that reference could have been made,if the AO was
of the opinion that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it was
necessary so to do,that there was nothing special about the nature of the asset which would have
justified the AO to make a reference to the VO.No other relevant circumstances could be pointed
out,that no attempt was made to justify the action of the AO under any other provision of section
55A.Finally,it was held by the Hon’ble Court that the reference to the DVO was not in accordance
with law and it had to be quashed.(209 ITR 568)
v).The purpose of section 55A of the Act is not to enable the AO to make a roving and fishing
inquiry for finding out materials for reopening or revising a completed assessment. Pendency of
an assessment including reassessment is a sine qua non for giving jurisdiction to the AO to make a
reference under the said section of the Act.It has no relevance and cannot be applied after the
assessment is completed and before the reassessment has commenced,that is,to consider the
question whether the completed assessment is based on undervaluation.
vi).A valuation report is only an opinion of a valuer.The same does not amount to information
www.taxguru.in
10
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
within the meaning of section 147 nor can it form a ground for reason to believe that the assessee
had failed to disclose his income fully and truly within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The
reason to believe of an AO cannot be substituted by an opinion of a valuer.In other words, the
valuation report could, at best, be considered as a mere reason, but could not be a reason to be
believed by the assessing authority
vii).The scope of section 55A of the Act is confined to ascertaining the fair market value of a
capital asset which is the subject matter of transfer.Though the expression under this Chapter is
referred to in section 55A,the section has application only to transactions involving capital gains.
viii).FAA is not required statutorily to give notice under section 246 or section 250 or 251 of the
Act to the Valuation Officer. Sub-section (3A) of section 23 and the proviso to sub-section (5) of
section 24 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, dealing with appeals before the FAA and the Tribunal,
specifically provide for opportunity of hearing to be granted to the Valuation Officer.There are no
corresponding provisions in sections 250 and 254 of the Act.Mutatis mutandis application of
certain provisions of sections 16A, 23 and 24 of the Wealth-tax Act vis-a-vis section 55A could
not change the position.
ix).The power of the AO under sections 131(1) and 133(6) is distinct from and does not include
the power to refer a matter the under u/s.55A of the Act.A report of the VO under section 55A
may be considered by the AO,as a piece of evidence if it is relevant.However, the power of
inquiry granted to an AO under sections 133(6) and 142(2) does not include the power to refer the
matter to the VO for an enquiry by the latter.We are of the opinion that if the power to refer any
dispute to a VO was already available in sections 131(1),133(6) and 142(2) of the Act,there was
no need to specifically empower the AO to do so in certain circumstances u/s.55A.But,order
issuing commission to VO under section 131(1)(d) of the Act with regard to cost of construction
is permissible and in that situation it would not be a reference u/s.55A of the Act.
x).For invoking the provisions of section 55A of the Act formation of opinion of the AO that the
value claimed by the assessee is less than its FMV is a sine qua non.Recording reasons after the
order of reference,for valuation of the registered valuer,is not a substitute for pre decisional
formation of opinion.(330 ITR506).
xi).A reference can be made to VO,under section 55A,clause (b) sub-clause (ii),only if AO
records existence of ‘such other relevant circumstances’ on the basis of which he forms such
opinion.In other words,a reference can be made if certain pre-conditions exit.
In the matter of Hotel Joshi,Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that for invoking sub-clause
(ii)of clause (b) of section 55A of the Act,AO is required to form an opinion on the basis of the
material on record that reference to the DVO for ascertaining the FMV of an asset,is necessary
having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances(242 ITR 478).
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah(310ITR31)has held that as per
the clause(b) of section 55A of the Act,the AO has to record an opinion that (i) the FMV of the
asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage or by
more than such an amount as may be prescribed ;or (ii) having regard to the nature of the asset
and other relevant circumstances,it is necessary to make such a reference.Clause (b) of section
55A of the Act can be invoked only when the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is not
supported by the valuation report of a registered valuer.
xii).The assessee can be said to be effectively prejudiced only when action is taken by the incometax authorities on the basis of the report submitted by the DVO.Even otherwise there is no
provision in the Act which deals with the situation as to what would happen to a reference made
to the DVO u/s.55A which is pending completion at the time of passing the assessment
order.Obviously,the assessment order cannot be deferred in view of the limitation prescribed for
passing the same.The report of the DVO as and when received by the AO,may be acted upon by
him and if he does so,the validity of that action can be questioned by the assessee.Section 55A
does not create any bar on the DVO to value the property on the basis of a valid reference made
www.taxguru.in
11
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
by the AO .
4.2.Here,we would also like to discuss the recent decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High
Court, delivered in the case of Puja Prints(360ITR697).In that case,assessee had claimed value of
the property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.35.99 lakhs on the basis of the report of a government
valuer.The AO referred the issue of valuation to the DVO,who valued the property at Rs. 6.68
lakhs as on 01.04.1981.Consequently,the AO enhanced the capital gains of the assessee. In the
appellate proceedings,FAA decided the issue against the assessee.Order of the FAA was
challenged before the Tribunal.Deciding the issue of FMV,Tribunal held that in view of section
55A it was not permissible for the AO to make a reference to the DVO for the purpose of
valuation,as the value of the property declared by the assessee was not less than its FMV.
Department agitated the issue before the Hon’ble High Court.Upholding the order of the Tribunal
and following the judgment of Daulal Mohta (HUF)(360ITR680) Hon’ble Court held as under:
“There was no dispute that the value adopted by the assessee of the property at Rs. 35.99 lakhs
was much more than the fair market value of Rs.6.68 lakhs even as determined by the
Departmental Valuation Officer.In fact, the AO referred the issue of valuation to the Department al VO only because in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the assessee
was higher than the fair market value. Therefore, the invocation of section 55A(a) was not
justified.
(ii) That the amendment to section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words "is less then its
fair market value" were substituted by the words "is at variance with its fair market value" was
made effective only from July 1,2012.Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the
amendment.Therefore, the law to be applied in the assessee's case was section 55A(a) as existing
during the period relevant to the assessment year 2006-07.At the relevant time,very clearly
reference could be made to the Departmental VO only if the value declared by the assessee was in
the opinion of AO less than its fair market value.
(iii)That section 55A(b) states that it would apply in any other case, i.e., a case not covered by
section 55A(a). There was no dispute that the issue was covered by section 55 A(a).Therefore,
recourse could not be had to the residuary clause provided in section 55 A(b)(ii).Therefore, the
Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular dated November 25 1972 (see [1973] 91 ITR (St.) 1),
could have no application in the face of the clear position in law. Hence, the reference to the
Departmental VO by the AO ,was not sustainable in view of section 55A(a)(ii).
The following questions of law have been formulated by the Revenue for consideration by this
court :
(a)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that the reference made by the AO to the VO per se is bad in law ?
Further, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in observing that the reference to
the DVO under section 55A of the Act is to be made when the value of the property disclosed by
the assessee is less than the fair value and not vice versa thereby ignoring the provisions of section
55A(b)(ii) of the Act, and paragraphs 26 to 28 of Circular No.96, dated November 25, 1972, of
the Central Board of Direct Taxes (see [1973] 91 ITR (St.) 1) ?
(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in directing the AO to accept the valuation given by the respondent as the fair
market value on the basis of the registered valuer's report and workout capital gains ?
(c)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that the ownership of the property is required to be examined vis-avis the various partnership deeds entered into by the firm and to that limited extent restoring the
issue to the file of the AO for deter-mining the date of acquisition by the firm for the purpose of
indexation, particularly when this issue was not raised either before the AO or the Commissioner
of Income-tax (Appeals) and, hence, did not arise from the order of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) ?
We have considered the rival submissions.We find that the impugned order dated 18.02.2011,
allowing the respondent-assessee's appeal holding that no reference to the Departmental VO can
www.taxguru.in
12
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
be made under section 55A of the Act only follows the decision of this court in the matter of Daulal
Mohta (HUF) (supra).The Revenue has not been able to point out how the aforesaid decision is
inapplicable to the present facts nor has the Revenue pointed out that the decision in Daulal
Mohta (HUF) (supra) has not been accepted by the Revenue. On the aforesaid ground alone, this
appeal need not be entertained. However, as the submissions were made on the merits, we have
independently examined the same.
We find that section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference
could be made to the Departmental VO only when the value adopted by the assessee was less than
the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the value adopted by the
respondent-assessee of the property at Rs. 35.99 lakhs was much more than the fair market value
of Rs. 6.68 lakhs even as determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. In fact, the AO
referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental VO only because in his view the valuation of
the property as on 1981 as made by the respondent-assessee was higher than the fair market
value. In the aforesaid circumstances, the invocation of section 55A(a) of the Act is not justified.
The contention of the Revenue that in view of the amendment to section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012
by which the words "is less than its fair market value" is substituted by the words "is at variance
with its fair market value" is clarifactory and should be given retrospective effect.This submission
is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from July 1, 2012.
Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be applied in
the present case is section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the
assessment year 2006-07. At the relevant time, very clearly reference could be made to
Departmental VO only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of AO less than its
fair market value.
The contention of the Revenue that the reference to the Departmental VO by the AO is sustainable
in view of section 55A(a)(ii) of the Act is not acceptable. This is for the reason that section 55A(b)
of the Act very clearly states that it would apply in any other case, i.e., a case not covered by
section 55A(a) of the Act. In this case, it is an undisputable position that the issue is covered by
section 55A(a) of the Act. Therefore, resort cannot be had to the residuary clause provided in
section 55A(b)(ii) of the Act. In view of the above, the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular
dated November 25, 1972, can have no application in the face of the clear position in law. This is
so as the understanding of the statutory provisions by the Revenue as found in Circular issued by
the Central of Direct Taxes is not binding upon the assessee and it is open to an assessee to
contend to the contrary.
The contention of the Revenue that the AO is entitled to refer the issue of valuation of the property
to the Departmental VO in exercise of its power under sections 131, 133(6) and 142(2) of the Act
is entirely based upon the decision of the Guwahati High Court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul
(supra).However, the apex court in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul(supra) has reversed the decision of the
Guwahati High Court and held that if the power to refer any dispute with regard to the valuation
of the property was already available under sections 131(1), 136(6) and 142(2) of the Act,there
was no need to specifically empower the AO to do so in circumstances specified under section
55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be
made to the Departmental VO is available, there is no occasion for the AO to invoke the general
powers of enquiry.
In view of the above and particularly in view of clear provisions of law as existing during the
period relevant to the assessment year 2006-07, we are of the view that questions (a) and (b) do
not raise any substantial question of law.”
4.3.We find that all the arguments advanced by the AR have been dealt with by the Hon’ble High
Court decisively.The record available with us,does not indicate as to what was the opinion formed
by the AO before making reference to the DVO.Therefore, it is apparent that he had, at no point
of time,formed an opinion that the FMV;in substitution of the cost of acquisition,as claimed by
the assessee;was required to be disturbed because prescribed parameters were not fulfilled.In
other words,it is not clear as to whether the reference was made under clause 55A(a) or 55A(b)(ii)
of the Act and if it was made under section 55A(b)(ii) then what were the relevant circumstances
www.taxguru.in
13
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
for making such reference.Recording of reasons for invoking a particular section of the Act and
justification for invoking the specific clause are not available and nor were they brought to our
notice.As the value shown by the assessee was not less than the FVM,so,in our opinion,there was
no justification for making any reference to the DVO,by the AO in the year under
consideration.Amendment to the section 55A of the Act is effective from 01.07.2012. So,
reversing the order of the FAA,we decide the additional ground in favour of the assessee.
As we have held that the additional ground is to be decided in favour of the assessee,so,we hold
that Ground no.1 is academic in nature.Same is allowed for statistical purose.
As far as decision of Chaturbhj Vallabhdas HUF,relied upon by the DR,is concerned we are of the
opinion that same stands reversed by the judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court
delivered in the cases of Daulat Mohta(HUF) and Puja Prints(supra).
5.Ground no.2 is about Allocation of preliminary cost (Rs.36,87,000/-)and common amenities
(Rs.76,96,000/-) between Bldg.A and the balance project.During the assessment proceedings,AO
found that assessee had included Project Management Fees(Rs.46.20 lakhs),Preliminary Cost
(Rs.36.87lakhs) and Common Amenities(Rs.76.96 lakhs) in the cost of construction of the build ingA.AO was of the opinion that expenditure incurred by the assessee under the above -mentioned
three heads were in the nature of general expenses for the entire project and could not be
exclusively considered as the expense incurred on the first building. He held that the payment of
architect fees, legal and professional fees and payment of local agency, amounting to Rs.36.87
lakhs was for construction of entire project,that the external lightings/club house was for the entire
project,that the same should have been apportioned in ratio of salable area of building A to the
total flat area for determining the cost of construction of building A. In view of the above, the
combined expenses of Rs.1.60 crores(Rs.46.20 lakhs + 36.87 lakhs + 76. 96 lakhs) was
apportioned by the AO in the ratio of salable area of building to the total salable area.
5.1.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. It was stated
before him that assessee had filed the details of above expenses, that it was clarified that Project
Management Fees of Rs.46.20 lakhs had been paid exclusively for building A only,that
apportioning the same over the entire project was not correct,that it had filed a copy of receipt
confirming that the fees paid was only for building A,that the expenditure incurred should be
entirely allowed against building A,that the expenditure on common facilities represented
expenditure incurred on various facilities and was incurred for phase-1 of the project only,that the
entire expenditure of Rs.36.87 lakhs and 76.96 lakhs should be allowed against building A.
Alternatively,without prejudice to the above,assessee contented that entire expenditure of Rs.1.60
crores should apportioned in the ratio of 25,671 Sq. ft to1,15,000Sq.ft.It was further contended
that Project Management Fee was decided to be given by the assessee to the Project Manager at a
certain percentage of sales price, that two agreements were entered into with the Project Manager
in this regard,that Management Fees was paid separately for other buildings,that the entire
Management Fees of Rs. 46.20 lakhs allotted to building A.Dismissing the appeal filed by the
assessee,FAA held that the breakup of cost of construction and land showed that interest was paid
to the project manager,that interest payment related to entire project.
5.2.Before us,AR submitted that as per agreement with buyers of the flat the assessee was under
an obligation to provide the facilities like swimming pool, health club etc. which were for the
common use of all the flat owners of the entire project and expenses have therefore been rightly
allocated to Phase 1 viz.Bldg.A of the project.He relied upon page 157(para12) of the paper book
and page 206 (para 2)of Supplementary PB.DR supported the order of the FAA.
5.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that while
adjudicating the issue FAA has not passed a speaking order.He has not considered the alternative
argument raised by the assessee,he has endorsed the order of the AO without assigning any
reason.In these circumstances,we are of the opinion that matter should be restored back to the file
www.taxguru.in
14
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
of the FAA for fresh adjudication.He is directed to pass a reasoned order after affording a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.Ground no.2 is allowed in favour of the
assessee,in part.
6.Next ground deals with allocation of interest cost of Rs.69,69,203/-over Bldg.A and balance
project.During the assessment proceedings,AO apportioned the interest expenditure also.With
regard to the apportionment of interest of Rs. 69,69,203/- on the basis of entire project.Assessee
argued before the FAA that interest was period cost,that it had to be apportioned against building
A only as interest was paid for that building only.Alternatively,it was argued that interest incurred
till 31.03.2002 amounting to Rs.46.08 lakhs,that same was incurred entirely for building A,that
there was hardly any expenditure incurred on other building,that the interest for the year under
appeal of Rs.23.60 lakhs should be apportioned between building A and building B equally,that
the cost incurred for the building A and the Building B was almost same,i.e.Rs. 2.03 crores and
Rs. 2.04 Crores for the building A and B respectively.FAA dismissed the appeal filed by the
assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.
6.1.Before us,AR argued that the assessee followed Mercantile system of accounting,that interest
must be allowed on accrual basis,that allocation of interest was not justified because,that building
A was completed in October 2000,that flats were sold, and funds from flat sales were available for
the balance project,that interest cost was incurred mainly for Bldg. A.Alternatively, it was argued
that interest of Rs. 57,88,873/-should be allowed.He referred to page no.1 of the assessment order
and Para No.8.2(pg.18)of FAA’s order.He relied upon the matter of Lokhand -wala Construction
(260 ITR 579)of Hon’ble Bombay High Court.DR supported the order of the FAA.
6.2.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the FAA
had dealt with the issue of interest apportionment in a single line and it is the part of the same
paragraph that deals with apportionment of other expenses.While deciding ground no.2 we have
restored back the matter of apportionment of expenses to the file of the FAA.Following the
same,issue of apportioning the interest expenditure is also remitted back to the file of the FAA for
passing a speaking order after hearing the assessee and after considering the decision of Hon’ble
jurisdictional high Court relied upon by the it.Ground no.3 is allowed partly in favour of the
assessee.
As a result,appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
फलतः िनधा)रती 4ारा दा5खल क, गई अपील अंशतः मंजूर क, जाती है .
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May,2014.
आदे श क, घोषणा खुले यायालय म: ;दनांक 30 ebZ, 2014 को क, गई ।
Sd/Sd/("ववे
"ववेक वमा/ Vivek Varma)
(राजे
राजेि/Rajendra)
ि
याियक सदःय /JUDICIAL MEMBER
लेखा सदःय /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई/Mumbai,;दनांक/Date: 30 May,2014.
SK
आदे श क, ूितिल"प अमे"षत/Copy
of the Order forwarded to :
षत
th
1. Assessee /अपीलाथ&
2. Respondent /ू(यथ&
3. The concerned CIT (A) /संब> अपीलीय आयकर आयु?, 4. The concerned CIT /संब> आयकर आयु?
5. DR “I” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /"वभागीय ूितिनिध vkbZ खंडपीठ,आ.अ.याया.मुंबई
6. Guard File/गाड फाईल
www.taxguru.in
15
ITA No. 2187/Mum/2006 Pradeep G. Vora
स(या"पत ूित //True Copy//
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai
www.taxguru.in