February 2020

Section 142A(6): It is mandatory for the Valuation Officer to submit the Valuation Report within six months from the date of receipt of the reference – Delay in filing the report cannot be condoned

Jagdish T.Punjabi
Chartered Accountant | Devendra Jain
Advocate

18. [2019] 75 ITR (Trib.) 219 (Hyd.) Shri Zulfi Revdjee vs. ACIT ITA No. 2415/Hyd/2018 A.Y.: 2013-14 Date of order: 5th September, 2019

 

Section 142A(6): It is mandatory for the Valuation Officer to submit the Valuation Report within six months from the date of receipt of the reference – Delay in filing the report cannot be condoned

 

FACTS

The assessee sold a property during F.Y. 2012-13. He filed the return of income disclosing capital gains arising from the sale of the said property. The AO sought to make an addition u/s 50C of the Act. However, since the assessee objected to it, he referred the file to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation of the property. The DVO submitted the report after the expiry of the period stipulated u/s 142A(6). Further, he also considered the value of the house as on the date of registration of agreement. The assessee, inter alia, raised an objection that the report submitted by the DVO is beyond the stipulated time limit of six months, as specified u/s 142A(6), and consequently the assessment is barred by limitation.

 

The assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal.

 

HELD

The Tribunal observed that u/s 142A the valuation report by the DVO has to be submitted within six months from the date of receipt of the reference. However, the DVO submitted his report after 15 months from the end of the month in which reference was made to him. The Tribunal considered whether the time limit for submission of report could be enlarged or condoned. It noted that the word used in sub-section (6) of section 142A is ‘shall’, while in other sub-sections it is ‘may’. In B.K. Khanna & Co. vs. Union of India and others, the Delhi High Court [156 ITR 796 (Del.)] has held that where the words ‘may’ and ‘shall’ are used in various provisions of the same section, then both of them contain different meanings

--->

Past Issues

Flip-Book
HTML View
Current Issue