Section 153(1) r/w clause (iv) of Explanation 1 – Extension of time is provided to complete the assessment in a case where A.O. makes reference to the Valuation Officer only u/s 142A(1) – Where a reference is made to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A or 50C, there is no extension of time to complete the assessment

4.       [2019] 76 ITR (Trib.) 135 (Luck.)

Naina Saluja vs. DCIT

ITA No. 393/LKW/2018

A.Y.: 2013-14

Date of order: 25^th October, 2019

Section 153(1) r/w clause (iv) of Explanation 1 – Extension of time is provided to complete the assessment in a case where A.O. makes reference to the Valuation Officer only u/s 142A(1) – Where a reference is made to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A or 50C, there is no extension of time to complete the assessment

FACTS

The assessee had sold her two properties and derived income under the head ‘Capital Gains’ during the relevant A.Y. 2013-14. While computing long-term capital gain, the assessee had worked out the cost of acquisition on the basis of the circle rates as on 1^st April, 1981. For this purpose, the A.O. had referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for estimating the correct fair market value of the properties as on that date. In the meanwhile, the assessee had challenged the Stamp Duty Value adopted and requested to refer the matter to the Valuation Cell for valuation of the property as on the date of transfer. As the transaction was falling under ‘capital gains’, the reference made by the A.O. to the Valuation Officer was u/s 55A and the reference made by the assessee for valuation was u/s 50C. The A.O. had received the second valuation report on 21^st March, 2016 and had thereafter called for objections from the assessee on the second valuation report. The A.O. concluded the assessment and passed an assessment order on 19^th May, 2019 making an addition to the capital gains on the basis of the said valuation report.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) claiming that the assessment completed was beyond the time period prescribed in section 153 of the Act and, thus, the assessment order was barred by limitation. However, the CIT(A) held that both the references were made u/s 142A of the Act and thereby concluded that the assessment order was not barred by limitation. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment order and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

The assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal observed that the reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 142A can be made for the purpose of assessment or reassessment where the valuation is required for the purpose of section 69, 69A, 69B or section 56(2), whereas the references u/s 55A or u/s 50C are specific for the purpose of computation of capital gains. The provisions of section 142A do not govern the provisions of computation of capital gains.

The first reference to the Valuation Officer was made for ascertaining the value of the asset as on 1^st April, 1981 when it was sold, and the second reference was made for valuation of property as on the date of transfer which can only be made under the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. Thus, neither of the references was made u/s 142A of the Act.

Further, as per the provision of section 153(1) r/w Explanation 1, the provision for extension of time for completing the assessment is available only if the reference is made to the Valuation Officer u/s 142A. There is no provision for extension of time for completing the assessment in case the reference is made u/s 55A or u/s 50C. Hence, the assessment order was to be passed by 31^st March, 2016 for the relevant assessment year. The assessment order was, however, passed on 19^th May, 2016 which was beyond the period of limitation, hence the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.