Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1085 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMCapital gain computation - deduction u/s 50C - assessee argued that the order of the District Registrar was faulty and the guideline value of the vacant site in the area subsequent to the registration of the document also was lesser than the value adopted by the District Registrar - HELD THAT:- Transactions of agreement and possession was handed over on 16.11.2010 and the part payment was also received by the assessee on 16.11.2010. Therefore respectfully following the view taken by this tribunal in the case of Appana Hari Naga Venkat Rao [2019 (2) TMI 1650 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] we hold that market value determined by the SRO for registering the document as on 16.11.2010 has to be considered as the full value of consideration but not the value determined in the sale deed. Even otherwise from careful verification of the proceedings of the District Registrar, the market rate as on the date of execution or the sale deed was ₹ 26,000/- i.e. on 28.02.2011, but not as on16.11.2010 Since there was substantial time gap between the sale agreement and the sale deed, there is a possibility of increase in the market rate. The assessee had obtained the market value certificate as on 16.11.2010 from the Joint Sub Registrar vide certificate dated 27.05.2015 for the same door No.2-4-34 and it was ₹ 16,000/- per sq.yard as on 16.11.2010. Subsequent to the execution of the sale document also the assessee has obtained the guideline value for the same municipal number of 2-4-34 and the market value as on 18.04.2011 was at ₹ 12,000/- per sq.yard. The District Registrar fixed the market rate at ₹ 26,000/- as against the guide line value of ₹ 12,000/- or ₹ 16,000/- as per their own records without giving reason for deviating the SRO value or the market value fixed as on 16.11.2010 as agreed by both the parties. On 08.06.2017 also, the assessee has obtained the market value certificate from Joint Sub Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh which was certified that the value of the vacant land at Door No.2-4-34 was ₹ 12,000/- as on 28.02.2011. AO brushed aside the evidence produced by the assessee for irrelevant differences in the certificate such as change of locality etc. AO ought to have considered that even though there may be multiple names for the same locality or street, Door No is unique and remains the same for each house in a town or municipality. Subsequent to the sale of the land also, the Joint Sub Registrar has given the market value of the property at ₹ 12,000/- per sq.yd as discussed above. The purpose of capital gains, the full value of consideration has to be taken as determined by Stamps and Registration Authority as on 16.11.2010, the date of sale agreement. Since, we have already taken view that the market value as on sale agreement has to be considered for the purpose of capital gains we are not inclined to comment on the issue of market value determined by the District Registrar, since the same is pending in the court. CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO and direct the AO to compute the capital gains as per the stamp value assessed in the sale agreement cum possession dated 16.11.2010. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed
|