9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case the learned CIT (A) also erred in rejecting cost of improvement in property at Rs. 22,180/- in Assessment year 1997-98 and Rs. 12,692/- in 2005-06 ignoring this fact that it was appearing in related years Balance Sheet. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) further erred in holding rent received from Industrial Shed as Property Income as against Business Income disclosed and accepted by Deptt. consistently. ITA No. 286/JP/2012 : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIST (A), Kota has erred in - i) "working out the value of the property at Rs. 2290/- per sq. ft. against Rs. 2,905/- per sq. ft. determined by the DVO. ii) Reducing the fair value of the propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are that during the year under consideration the assessee sold commercial plot no. 3, LIGH Scheme, Gumanpura, Kota for a sum of Rs. 70 lacs to M/s. PACL India Ltd., Jaipur as against the DLC value of Rs. 1,39,44,000/-. The assessee, however, took an objection before the Assessing Authority that the DLC value should not be applied and a reference be made under section 50C(2) of the I.T. Act for valuation of the property. Upon reference, he furnished Valuation Reports from two approved valuers before the DVO. One approved valuer Shri V. Padmanabhan has assessed the value of property of assessee at Rs. 71 lacs as per Valuation Certificate placed at paper book pages 19 to 21 filed. The second approved valuer Shri Govind Singh Bapna valued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenging the valuation report and value arrived at by the DVO in terms of section 50C(2) of IT Act. His decision in paras 4.22 and 4.72 at internal pages 6, 11 & 12 in that appeal are reproduced as under :- " 4.22. I have gone through the valuation report of Shri V. Padmanabhan and Shri Govind Singh Bapna. Shri V. Padmanabhan started the valuation by taking basic rate of the plot at Rs. 2100/- per sq. ft. and deducted 20% for the effect of fly over and 10% for the effect of panic selling. He has not given any reason for taking the basic rate at Rs. 2100/-. Similarly, Shri Govind Singh Bafna has valued this plot at Rs. 1503/- per sq. ft. However, he has not given the basis for adopting this rate. Accordingly, the reports of these valuers ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... my view the DVO should have taken into account the following factors (which were considered by him while determining the value as on 01.04.1981):- 1) That the plot was open on two sides. 2) That the plot was a large size plot. The fair value of property is worked out as under (after considering these factors);- DLC rate as on 01.04.2006 = Rs. 2905 per sq. ft. Add 5% for 2 side open plot = Rs. 145.25 Rs. 3050.25 Less : 25% for 2 side open plot = Rs. 762.58 Rs. 2287.69 Say = Rs. 2290/- per sq. ft. The other points raised by the assessee do not have any bearing on the valuation of the plot. The value of plot as per this working comes to Rs. 1,09,92,000/- (Rs. 2290 x 4800 sq. ft.). The same is directed to be taken as fair market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after allowing deduction of 25% on account of bigger size plot on the estimated fair market value of 277.45 per sq. ft. and thus worked out the final rate as on 1.4.1987 at Rs. 208/- per sq. ft as is apparent from assessee's paper book pages 34 and 38 forming part of the DVO's report. Neither the DVO nor the Assessing Officer allowed this rebate of 25% in the value adopted as on the date of sale though this fact was emerging from the same report of the DVO itself. The ld. CIT (A) considering this as an infirmity, corrected the rate to Rs. 2290/- per sq. ft. as against Rs. 2905/- determined by the DVO in his DVO's report. The ld. CIT (A) on the peculiar fact, is not found to have committed any error in correcting the DVO's report and making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property under consideration accordingly. 5. The appellant has also raised the plea that it had to make a panic sale of its property as he had to repay loans taken from the bank. For making panic sale, the value of the property had depressed and for this factor the approved valuer has allowed a rebate of 10%. The authorities below, however, have not given report nor made any modification in the report of the DVO. Having considered the material, we find that the assessee has not laid any material on record to substantiate that there was such compulsion for making repayment of loan by him by way of sale of his immovable property nor has he proved utilization of his funds towards making repayment of loan, if any earlier raised by him. We, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
