TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of capital gain accruing as a result of sale of said land by the three co-owners in the year under consideration. We find it expedient to pass a consolidated order since the issue involved is common. 2. Since the facts and circumstances in all the appeals are common, we may refer to the facts in relation to the case of Smt. Baljinder Kaur, ITA No. 545/Chd./2007. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee sold her share of the impugned land at a total consideration of Rs. 71,67,000 during the year under consideration. The land owned by the assessee was 2.16 acres. The assessee declared a loss of Rs. 4,69,200 on account of the said sale. In computing the said capital loss the assessee adopted the cost of acquisition of the land @ Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order in IT Appeal Nos. 408, 410/Chd./2000 dated 8-10-2004 restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with directions. The impugned order has been passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance to the order of the Tribunal. In this order the Assessing Officer has worked out the capital gain at the same amount by adopting fair market value of the land as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 90,000 per acre. The CIT(A) has since held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the fair market value of land @ Rs. 11.50 lakhs per acre considered by the assessee for computing the capital gain. Against the said decision the Revenue is in appeal. The assessee has preferred cross-objections primarily i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said agreement was Rs. 11.50 lacs per acres; and (3) the assessment order in the case of one Shri Kapoor Singh passed by the same Assessing Officer wherein a similarly situated land was considered for which the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 was adopted on the same basis as canvassed by the assessee. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid, the learned counsel submitted that the fair market value adopted by the assessee stood supported by evidence. The learned counsel explained that the 'agreement to sell' dated 6-2-1981 with Shri Zora Singh has been found to be a reliable piece of evidence by the Tribunal in its order dated 8-10-2004. That therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in ignoring the same. The learned counsel explained t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e essentially pertains to the ascertainment of fair market value of land in question as on 1-4-1981 so as to arrive at the cost of acquisition for the purposes of computing capital gain accruing as a result of transfer of such land. Section 55(2)(b) allows an option to the assessee to adopt the fair market value of the land as on 1-4-1981 as the cost of acquisition wherein such an asset became the property of the assessee or of the previous owner before the 1st day of April, 1981. There is no dispute that in principle the assessee is entitled to seek the option as provided in section 55(2)(b) of the Act. The dispute only relates to the implication of the expression 'fair market value' as appearing in the said provision. The said expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sale deed No. 586 dated 24-4-1981 of a comparable properly located at Village Dhandari Kalan in the vicinity of assessee's land. It is further pointed out that the comparable instance considered by the registered valuer was also considered by the DVO to evaluate a property at Village Dhandari Kalan in the case of one Shri Kapoor Singh copy of which has been placed at pp. 34 to 40 of the paper book. It is further submitted that the valuation of the DVO dated 17-1-2005 in this regard valuing the property as on 1-1-1981 has since been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the case of Shri Kapoor Singh, copy of the assessment order submitted at p. 32. We find that the Assessing Officer in the case of Shri Kapoor Singh and the assessee is same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer. In any case when the fair market value of a similarly situated land in the case of Shri Kapoor Singh has been accepted by the Assessing Officer with reference to the same basis as adopted by the registered valuer in this case, there was no Justification for the Assessing Officer to reject the fair market value of land at Rs. 11.50 lakhs per acre returned by the assessee which is considered by the registered valuer. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no error in the order of the CIT(A) whereby the capital gain has been directed to be computed on the basis of cost of acquisition based on the fair market value of land @ Rs. 11.50 lakhs per acre as on 1-4-1981. As a consequence, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 9. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
