Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 64 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - addition u/s 50C - AO sent the matter to the DVO and as matter was getting time barred, without waiting for the DVO’s order, he added the difference between the sale value and circle rate - assessee contended that sale instances of the property located in the same building were filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), which the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered - HELD THAT:- As decided in MS. MADHU SHARMA. case [2004 (3) TMI 341 - ITAT DELHI-C] comparison should be done among instances which are relatively near. In the present case, the DVO despite noting the instances himself has not followed the valuation done for the same property but had preferred to take into account adjacent building without any reason. We find considerable cogency in the assessee’s submissions that DVO’s approach is not correct. DVO has done the valuation in a very arbitrary manner. He has preferred rates of nearby plots despite noting himself an instance of lower rate in the same building. When this was pointed out to Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee, CIT(A) rejected the same by holding valuation adopted by assessee’s valuer also has no value. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the view of CIT(A). The assessee’s valuer has duly mentioned and taken into account these instances of the same building. This as per the ratio emanating from the decision of Madhu Sharma [2004 (3) TMI 341 - ITAT DELHI-C] is the correct method. Moreover, this view is also supported by the newspaper articles referred by the valuer that the actual prevailing transaction rate in the area were much lower than the circle rate . These aspects have not been rebutted by the revenue authorities. Hence, in our considered opinion, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set-aside - Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
|