TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of land measuring 5,100 sq.ft. and an old residential building built thereon. The assessee by agreement dated 9-7-1993 offered the said property for development into a residential apartment complex to M/s. Avidi Developers. As per the agreement, the assessee was obliged to sell 2561/5100th undivided share of title and interest in the land comprised in the said property to the developers or to the buyers of the developers share of apartment. In consideration, the assessee was entitled to get constructed the residential apartments with built up area of 4,245 sq.ft. and a sum of Rs. 29,450 in cash and to retain the balance of 2539/5100th of undivided share of title in the land comprising the said property. Consequent upon the joint developme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned departmental representative vehemently contended that the CIT(A) is not justified in placing reliance on the sale instance quoted by the assessee. The CIT(A) did not consider the fact that the fair market value adopted by the Assessing Officer was on the basis of the Inspector s report which, in turn, relied upon the information furnished by the Sub-Registrar. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the information furnished by the Sub-Registrar of a comparable sale of Spencer s Road. He also argued that the CIT(A) is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant exemption under section 54. The assessee had acquired flats by purchase from the developers but not by construction. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration the specifics of the matter. Such issues require specific and analytical consideration of facts with an expertise in the matter. The Assessing Officer could have made it a case for reference to Valuation Officer within the meaning and scope of section 55A of the Act. This has not been done. There is no material fact to disprove the value of cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee. No specific rebuttal of the reasons given by the assessee has also been made. Under the circumstances, there does not seem to be any reason to substitute one estimate with that of another. As such, the cost of acquisition and value as taken by the assessee as on 1-4-1981 has to be adopted for calculation of the long-term capital gain. 7. Now coming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
