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 707 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - assessee is aggrieved with the report of the DVO - HELD THAT:- First objection relates to determination of fair market value as against DLC value and the fall in the fair market value especially due to the fact that the shops of the assessee are situated just in front of the railway bridge and due to such railway bridge, commercial value of shops has come down drastically which has been duly considered and addressed by the DVO in its report dated 30.10.2015. In his report, the DVO has stated that the shops are situated on main 100 feet wide road having all commercial amenities and regarding railway bridge, the assessee has not provided any alignment map/route map of bridge and at present, the work is stopped and as on date of sale, the bridge is not in existence. The said findings of the DVO remain uncontroverted before us and we therefore don’t find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said findings of the DVO and the first objection is hereby dismissed. Regarding the other objection raised by the ld AR regarding adoption of CPWD rates as against PWD rates, we agree with ld AR that where the shops are situated in the jurisdiction of state PWD, State PWD rates should be applied for estimation of cost of construction of shops. The same is the consistent position of this Bench following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunita Mansingha [2017 (4) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT] including the decision of CIT Vs. Hotel Joshi [2017 (4) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT] . In absence of any contrary precedent brought to our notice, we direct the adoption of state PWD rates for determination of cost of construction of shops and to this limited extent, the matter is remanded to the file of AO/DVO to determine the value of the shops after considering state PWD rates. Thus, first ground of appeal is dismissed and the second ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
|