9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 936 - AT - Income TaxComputation of capital gain - Held that - The stamp duty rate for a big and small plot is not different. Hence in our considered opinion the adjustment made by Ld. CIT(A) by reducing land area to the extent of 35% is not justified. We reverse the same.. The entire share of the assessee in the fair market value of the land to the extent of 18.10% should be considered for working out the capital gain of the assessee and as and when the assessee receives any amount out of the dispute amount of Rs. 1, 78, 16, 427/- in that event such actual receipt should be brought to tax in its totality without any reduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition but in the present year the cost of acquisition cannot be reduced. We hold accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order. 2. Reliance on evidence not provided to the appellant. 3. Computation of Long Term Capital Gains. 4. Market Value of Land as on 1-4-81. 5. Enhancement to computation of Capital Gain and cost of acquisition. 6. Levy of Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Order The appellant contended that the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order which was passed in haste and without providing sufficient time to respond to the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal did not specifically address this procedural issue in its judgment. 2. Reliance on Evidence Not Provided The appellant argued that the assessment order was invalid as the Assessing Officer relied on evidence collected without providing a copy to the appellant or an opportunity for cross-examination. This procedural fairness issue was not directly addressed by the Tribunal in its decision. 3. Computation of Long Term Capital Gains The appellant claimed that the CIT(A) erred in computing Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 3,31,15,811 instead of the revised Rs. 61,92,697 claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's computation and accepted the declared capital gain of Rs. 61,92,697. 4. Market Value of Land as on 1-4-81 The appellant contested the market value of land as determined by the Assessing Officer based on evidence from the Sub-Registrar, arguing that the valuation report from an authorized valuer should be accepted or referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the registered valuer's report should be accepted in the absence of a DVO report or any other technical expert's report. The Tribunal held that the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 should be Rs. 295.81 per sq. mtr as per the registered valuer's report. 5. Enhancement to Computation of Capital Gain and Cost of Acquisition The appellant argued against the CIT(A)'s enhancement to the computation of capital gain and the limitation of the cost of acquisition at 12.65% instead of 18.1%. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reduction of land area by 35% for common plots and internal roads was unjustified. The Tribunal also held that the entire share of the appellant in the fair market value of the land (18.10%) should be considered for working out the capital gain, rejecting the CIT(A)'s computation. 6. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C The appellant contested the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, arguing it was not applicable and incorrectly calculated. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in its judgment. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all three substantive aspects related to the computation of capital gains: - The fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 should be as per the registered valuer's report. - The reduction of land area by 35% for common plots and internal roads was unjustified. - The cost of acquisition should be based on the appellant's entire share (18.10%) in the land. The appeal was allowed, and the capital gain declared by the appellant at Rs. 61,92,697 was accepted.
|
