Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 516 - ITAT JAIPURCapital gain - Deemed sale consideration u/s 50C as against sale consideration as per the registered sale deed - Held that:- The contention of the assessee is that the higher stamp value has not been finalized basis the notice issued under section 54 of the stamp Act and it could be subject matter of appeal and till such time, such higher value has not been finalized, the same cannot be accepted for section 50C purposes. The copy of conveyance deed, the order of the sub-registrar, the notice under section 54 of the stamp Act and the status of any appeal being preferred against the said order are not brought on record by either of the parties. In absence of adequate material on record, we are therefore unable to take a view in the matter. The matter is accordingly set-aside to the file of the AO to examine the same a fresh after seeking requisite information from the Sub-Registrar authority regarding the final value so determined in respect of impunged property and decide as per law taking into consideration the above discussions. In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Cost of acquisition of the land taken by the AO as against cost of acquisition taken by the appellant in the return of income while working out long term capital gains on sale of property as jointly owned by the assessee along with his brother - Held that:- The valuer was issued notice u/s 133(6) and in response, he submitted that no document/purchase deed was provided by the assessee regarding valuation of land and he has taken the land rate basis the commercial land rates of various areas in Jaipur city for the location Ramgang Bazar to Galta Gate. Further, what those land rates are, there is no data which has been shown as forming part of the valuation report. We therefore find serious deficiency in the approach of the valuer. Firstly, where he has himself described the property as residential located in a residential area and occupied by the assessee for own residence and not rented out, a fact not been disputed even before us, that on basis, he has considered the commercial land rate. Secondly, what stopped the assessee who has appointed the valuer in sharing a copy of the registered purchase deed with the valuer. This shows the conduct of the assessee and his intention of seeking a valuation report which supports his case of a higher value instead of determining a fair market value which is the mandate of law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the lower authorities have rightly rejected the valuation report and do not agree with the contention of the ld AR that the AO could not have rejected the valuation report and ought to have accepted the same. The approach of the AO has however been found acceptable to us. To our mind, he has taken a sound basis of taking the value as per actual purchase deed dated 17.04.1980 and taking an average appreciation in the value of property @ 10% p.a., determined the fair market value at ₹ 38,500. Addition under the head “salary” - income was taken at ₹ 1,80,000/- as against income of ₹ 1,44,000/- as declared by the assessee - Held that:- The salary for the impugned year is ₹ 144,000 and salary for the next year is ₹ 180,000 and by mistake, salary certificate for the next year has been submitted during the assessment proceedings, however a correct certificate has been submitted during the appellate proceedings. AO is directed to verify the salary certificates with the return of income and where the same is found in order, allow the necessary relief to the assessee. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed with above directions - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|