Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 389 - AT - Income TaxLong term capital gain - determination of actual date of purchase of the capital asset - Fair Market Value (FMV) thereof u/s. 48(ii) r.w.s. Expl (iii) r.w.s. 55A - assessee's endeavour herein to claim the fair market value of its capital asset as per her registered valuer’s report going by sec. 55A(a), its amendment and therefore, this valuation report to have been adopted @ ₹ 1308 per sq. yard as on 1.4.1981 - HELD THAT:- All the assessee's arguments fail to evoke our concurrence. This is mainly for the reason that there is hardly any time gap worth counting between the date of assessee's purchase deed i.e. 1.9.1980 and the statutory clauses of cost of acquisition i.e. 1.4.1981 respectively. And also that her registered valuer’s report dt.30.1.2015 does not even make a mention if at all he had even tried to find any comparable case in the concerned Masab Tank locality. This registered valuer’s report deserves rejection only on account of these clinching aspect(s). We rather notice that the DVO’s report dt.30.3.2016 has duly considered comparable case(s) resulting in average FMV of ₹ 118.05 per sq. yard only. The assessee's legal as well as technical pleas seeking to claim her FMV as per registered valuer’s report go against the comparable cases and stand declined for the very reasons therefore. Legislature has used the clinching statutory expressions “fair market value” only - We find prima facie force in her stand that the purpose of stamp valuation is to collect revenue only than that of the FMV which is required to compute capital gains arising from transfer of a capital asset. The fact also remains that this issue of FMV of a capital asset w.e.f. 1.4.1981 has witnessed many booms and slumps in the intervening time span of four decades as on date. We keep in mind all these aspects and hold that FMV of the assessee's capital asset @ ₹ 400 per sq. yard by applying “thumb rule” would be just and proper in the given facts and circumstances with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly. This former issue is partly accepted in above terms. Assessee's claim of her husband to have spent ₹ 1,60,000 (₹ 1,40,000 in A.Y. 1989-90 and ₹ 20,000 in A.Y. 1990-91); respectively and that too, when the Assessing Officer had not made any such disallowance - This is a clear cut instance of enhancement u/s.251(1)of the Act without even issuing notice to this effect. We thus reverse the CIT(A)’s impugned action on this count alone.
|