Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 324 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - determination of the full value of consideration in terms of section 50C - HELD THAT:- There is hardly a month’s difference between the two sale dates of 08-01-2004 and 06-12-2003. It can further be seen that the DVO in the case of Shri Hemant Sudam Tupe considered the sale instances for land at Sy.No.187 in December, 2003 at ₹ 820/-. However, the DVO in the case of assessee has considered a sale instance of Sy.No.189 at ₹ 1,245/- per sq. mtr with date of sale at 16-09-2004. If we average the two rates, namely, ₹ 820/- per sq. mtr and ₹ 1,245/- per sq.mtr, the rate comes at ₹ 1,032/- per sq.mtr. This, is a more balanced and representative rate of the fair market value of the land as on the date of sale. Therefore, order to adopt ₹ 1,032/- as per sq.mtr value on the date of sale by the assessee, namely, 08-01-2004 against Sy.Nos. 187 and 243. In so far as the Sy. No. 198 is concerned, find that there are sale instances noted in the assessee’s valuation report at ₹ 1,801/- p.s.m. against land at Sy.No.211 and in the report of Shri Hemant Sudam Tupe at ₹ 1,369/- against Sy.No.197 and ₹ 818/- against Sy.No.197. These surveys are admittedly close to the survey no. 198 sold by the assessee. Average of these three figures comes to ₹ 1,330/-. Therefore, direct to apply ₹ 1,330/- as per sq.mtr rate in respect of land at Sy.No.198 sold by the assessee as on 08-01-2004. Valuation as on 01-04-1981 - It is seen that amendment to section 55A in the above terms has been carried out and made effective from 01-07-2012. The assessment year under consideration is 2004-05 and the AO made reference to the DVO for determining the fair market value on 20-10-2011. Thus, it is apparent that, by no standard, the amended provision is attracted in the instant case. Going by the interpretation of the pre-amended provision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Puja Prints (supra), as applicable to the facts of the instant case, it is vivid that no reference could have been made to the DVO when the value adopted by the assessee was more than the fair market value of the land in the opinion of the AO. Notwithstanding the above, it is seen that the assessee did file a Registered valuer’s report along with computation of income, relevant part of which has also been placed in the paper book. Since valid reference could not have been made to the DVO, the value so determined by him as on 01-04-1981, ergo, becomes meaningless for the instant exercise. Going by the provision as applicable to the instant case, it is held that the value of the land as declared by the assessee on 01-04-1981, which is patently more than the value so determined by the DVO/AO, cannot be interfered with. Set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for determining the amount of capital gain afresh in accordance with the discussion supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
|