Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1341 - AT - Income TaxDetermining long term capital gain in respect of sale of property - assessee co-owner to the extent of 1/8th share - substituting the actual sale consideration with the amount determined by the DVO by applying provisions of section 50C - Held that:- In the case of one of the co-owners, the assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3). No addition has been made in her hands. Ld. Counsel has rightly relied upon the aforesaid wherein it has been held that identical treatment deserves to be given in the hands of all the co-owners. Thus, on this ground itself, the action of the lower authorities in making addition in this regard is not sustainable. In addition to the above, it is also noted by us that while finding out comparable rate of neighbouring properties sold at that time, Ld.CIT(A) had inadvertently taken the rate of a property which was not pertaining to the same building, but located in Sidhwa Building, whose stamp duty has been given at ₹ 7,733 per sq.ft. On the other hand, rates of other properties located in the same building, i.e. BMP building are lesser than the sale price shown by the assessee and average rate of those properties were below the rate shown by the assessee. Thus, if correct sale instances were taken into consideration, no addition would have been called for. Further, it is clear from the evidences shown to us that the building of the assessee was constructed prior to 1940, whereas the aforesaid sale instances considered by the Ld. CIT(A) pertain to the building constructed in 1965. Thus, there cannot dispute on the point that appropriate adjustment on account depreciation must be given while determining the fair market values of two properties constructed at two different points of time. Further, none of the authorities has considered the aspect of providing discount with respect to sale price of properties owned by more than one person. It is noted by us that, if we properly consider all the objections raised by the assessee, the actual sale consideration shown by the assessee @ ₹ 6,000 per sq.ft., would not be less than the fair market value in view of the facts brought before us. Under these circumstances, there is actually no case of any addition. Ld. CT(A) ought to have deleted the addition fully. Thus, amount of the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to be deleted.
|