The Tribunal allowing the appeal held that, the AO had not assigned any reasons why he considered the valuation of the assessee to be high. The AO could not invoke the provisions of s. 142A without assigning tangible basis giving rise to doubt on the fair market value adopted by the assessee on the basis of the report of the registered valuer. When the assessee offered detailed comments on the District Valuation Officer’s valuation report asserting that no deficiency in the report of the registered valuer had been pointed out by the District Valuation Officer, that the District Valuation Officer failed to consider the specific features of the property commanding higher value, that the District Valuation Officer did not provide copies of sale deeds of the properties on the basis of which he worked out the average price to be the fair market value as on April 1, 2001, and that the fair market value as on April 1, 2001 as declared on the basis of the assessee’s valuation report had been accepted in the case of her two other joint co-owners in assessment orders framed u/s. 143(3). Moreover, the AO had accepted the fair market value as determined by the registered valuer of the assessee in the cases of the assessee’s co-owners, her brother and sister. Therefore, the addition in the case of the assessee was not warranted, when the same fair market value had been accepted in the cases of other co-owners.(AY. 2019-20)
Madhurittu Puri, United Kingdom v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2023)105 ITR 66 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 142A : : Estimate of value of assets by Valuation Officer-Co-Owner-Assessing officer not assigning reasons why he considered assessee’s valuation high so as to necessitate reference, detailed comments on district valuation officer’s valuation report not controverted by AO nor reason assigned why report of district valuation officer accepted-FMV determined by assessee’s registered valuer in cases of assessee’s co-owners accepted in their assessments, addition in case of assessee not warranted. [S. 143(3)]