TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Common questions are raised in all appeals. They read as under: (A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT (A) in deleting the addition made on account of Long Term Capital Gain on the basis of Valuation Report received from the Valuation Officer? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT (A) in accepting the value as on 01/04/1981 and rejecting the fair market value as on date of sale valued by the Valuation Officer which based on sales instances of the surrounding area? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT (A) wherein Valuation Report part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccurately stated in the sale deed. He, therefore, made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 55A of the I.T.Act, 1961 for determining the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981 (since the property was received through inheritance) as also on the date of sale. Upon receipt of such valuation report and on the basis of the same, the Assessing Officer worked out the capital gain being the difference in the valuation of property on 1.4.1981 and on the date of sale. 5. Assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) allowed the appeal observing that the Assessing Officer had not negated the fact that the agricultural lands were under Land Ceiling Act at the relevant point of time and val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal and contended that no reasons are given for confirming the order of CIT (A). He further submitted that the CIT (A), without any justification discarded the Valuation Report and estimated the fair market value of the land in question. He submitted that Section 50C of the Act was introduced subsequent to the date of sale and therefore, it ought not to have been applied in the present case. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the assessee submitted that in the present case, in absence of any evidence to show that consideration received was higher than what was reflected in the sale deed, no addition by way of capital gain could have been made. 9. In support of his contention, counsel relied on decision of the Apex Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 45(1), liability to pay capital gain would not arise because Section 45(1) is required to be read with Section 48. 12.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders on record, at the outset, we may notice that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, to confirm the order of CIT (A) only stated that; We have examined the rival submissions. We find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT (A) which is confirmed . 13.Except the said statement, we find no further reasons recorded by the Tribunal for rejecting revenue's appeal. The Tribunal being the final fact finding authority and also being a specialized Tribunal, its contribution in conclusion on facts and its understanding of law is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer committed an error in relying on such report. 15.With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the statutory provisions applicable in the case, as obtaining, at the relevant time. Present case relates to Assessment year 2000-01, it is undisputed position that Section 50C was not in the statute book, at the relevant time. CIT (A), therefore, erred in adopting principles contained thereunder to accept the Stamp Valuation Authority's assessment for the purpose of computing the capital gain. 16.Despite above error, we do not find that in the ultimate analysis, the CIT (A) committed an error. Firstly, we find that in Section 48 of the Act, the Income Tax Authority has to compute the capital gai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of a capital asset into, or its treatment by him as stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him. For obvious reasons, the said provision would not govern the present case. 19.Counsel for the revenue was unable to point out any other provision in which in a situation like the present one, the Assessing Officer could have made a reference to a value for ascertaining the fair market value of the assets in question as on date of its transfer. 20.Quite apart from the CIT (A) discarding the very Valuer's Report, we find that the reference itself was not competent insofar as he wanted to ascertain fair market value of the land on the date of sale. In absence of any material on record before us by which Assessing Officer could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
