O R D E R

The petitioner had been assessed for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by an order dated 29.12.2017, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The issue that arose in the course of assessment was the valuation of the property sold by the petitioner at Plot No.33 & 34 (NP), Alandur Hamlet, Adyar Village, Guindy (property in question) and the capital gains that would arise from the sale transactions, the cost of acquisition specifically.

2.The order of assessment proceeded on the basis that the indexed cost of acquisition would be in the region of Rs.37 lakhs (approx.), as against which the petitioner went on first appeal and thereafter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in second appeal. By order dated 06.09.2019, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer in the following terms:

'4. We heard the rival submissions. In the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, while considering the issue as to whether the land purchased has been undervalued or not, the Supreme Court observed that the guideline value has relevance only in the context of section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended by T.N. Act 24 of 1967) which provides for dealing with instruments of conveyance which are undervalued. Guideline value will only afford a prima facie basis to ascertain the true or correct market value. Guideline value is not sacrosanct, but only a factor to be taken note of if at all available in respect of an area in which the property transferred lies. When the assessee relies on the Registered Valuer's report and if Assessing Officer is not satisfied about such claim then, the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO to ascertain the fair market value. Therefore, we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the AO who shall refer the matter to DVO and proceed to determine the issue in accordance with law. The assessee's corresponding grounds of the appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.'

3.The Tribunal refers to the report of an approved valuer, to the effect that the indexed cost of acquisition of the property in question as on 1981, was Rs.48 crores (approx.).

4.Therefore, there is a serious dispute/difference between the cost of acquisition as arrived at by the Assessing Officer and as computed by the assessee/petitioner. Perhaps, it was bearing this gap in mind, that the Tribunal conciously chose to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer to ascertain fair market value as on 01.04.1981. We cannot thus assume that the reference to District Valuation Officer was casual, intending merely that the matter be valued by any authority, in the Valuation Department, as the revenue would have me believe. 5.On remand, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Department and the matter was referred internally to the Assistant Valuation Officer (AVO), An objection was raised by the petitioner to a notice issued to him by the AVO, stating that the proper authority to have embarked on the exercise of valuation would be the District Valuation Officer (DVO) and not the AVO in terms of the order of Tribunal. This objection has been rejected by the AVO, who proceeded on the reference, on merits.

6.An order dated 04.02.2020 under Section 16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 read with Section 55A of the Act has been passed valuing the property in question that has been taken note of by the Assessing Authority in passing the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 giving effect to the order of the Tribunal.

7.The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the proper authority to have valued the property in question would have been the DVO and not the AVO, and hence the jurisdiction assumed by the AVO is incorrect and improper.

8.Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel would rely on Rule 3(a) of the Welath Tax Act, 1957, setting out the bifurcation of officers for the purpose of valuation. Rul