TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dated 14.10.2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in fact in upholding order passed by the Income-tax Officer which was passed in haste and hurry disregarding facts of the case and without providing sufficient time to your Appellant to reply to his Show Cause Notice. 2. The CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in fact in upholding the order of Assessing Officer which was invalid bad in Law since the Assessing Officer had relied on certain evidence collected at the back of your Appellant a copy of which was not supplied and a chance of Cross Examination was also not given to the Appellant. 3. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) has also erred both in Law and in fact in computing Long Term Capital Gains at ₹ 3,31,15,811 in place of Capital Gains ₹ 61,92,697 (As Revised) as claimed by your Appellant.. 4. (a) The CIT(A) has further erred both in Law and in fact in upholding the Market Value of Land as on 1-4-81 relied by the Assessing Officer based on evidence given by the Sub-Registrar disregarding the Valuation Report of Authorized and Approved Valuer relied by your Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 11.12.2008, advance payment of ₹ 23,48,82,252/- was received during the year in which appellant's share @ 18.1% was ₹ 4,25,13,688/-. A.O. adopted sale consideration value at ₹ 4,25,13,688/-. In support of cost of acquisition, appellant furnished valuation report dt. 3.12.2008 from Ms. Krishna Shah, Registered Valuer valuing the cost of land for the year 1981-82 @ ₹ 293.81 per sq. mtr i.e ₹ 3,60,55,775/-. AO observed that appellant had not produced evidence to indicate how approved valuer's valuation report for cost of land at ₹ 293.81 per sq mtr was the basis for valuation. AO further observed that the sale deeds in respect of comparable instances quoted by the valuer were registered after 1.4.1981, the Revenue Survey numbers were different with different per sq. mtr values and the land in the sale instances were not in vicinity of appellant's land. AO held that the Valuer's report could not be depended upon. AO sought information from Sub-Registrar, Baroda-I in respect of comparable sale instances for determining fair market value as on 1.4.81. The Sub-Registrar, Vadodara through letter dt. 21.12.2010 furnished details and cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration has been apportioned to the assessee to the extent of 18.1% of the total sale consideration. 7. Ld. D.R. of the revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 8. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that there are three aspects to be decided by us. The first aspect is regarding fair market value as on 01.04.1981 of the assessee s land. In this regard, the claim of the assessee is that the rates adopted by the registered valuer should be applied and not the rates adopted by the A.O. on the basis of single instance of a land which is situated at far away place. The second aspect is whether the quantity of land reduced by Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of 10% for common plot and 25% for internal roads/other development cost is justified or not. The 3rd aspect is whether the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 of the assessee should be 18.10% of the total cost being the share of the assessee in the total land or whether it should be only 12.65% of the total cost as has been adopted by Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of net sale value of the assessee of ₹ 421.52 lacs compared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be controverted by the Ld. D.R. and hence, in our opinion, this sale instance obtained by the A.O. from sub-registrar office cannot be adopted because it is related to a land situated at far away place and moreover, when the assessee has submitted the report of the registered valuer, the same cannot be ignored or substituted without obtaining the report of a technical person viz. DVO or some other technical expert. The Tribunal order cited by the Ld. A.R. rendered in the case of Rajendra H Seth (supra) supports the assessee on this aspect. Relevant para of this Tribunal order i.e. para 10.1 is reproduced below: 10.1. As regards valuation of flat as on 1.4.1981, the admitted facts of the case are that the value declared by the assessee is supported by valuation report of a Registered Valuer. The A.O. has taken a different valuation without obtaining valuation report from the DVO. The AO has taken value as on 1.4.1981 on other basis. We are of the view that assessee's valuation as on 1.04.1981 is supported by valuation by a technical person ie. report of registered valuer and contrary to that no such material or departmental valuation report is available on record. Mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of a report of the registered valuer, cannot be disturbed and the same has to be accepted. We hold accordingly. The first aspect is decided in favour of the assessee. - The 2nd aspect is this that while working out the fair market value of the land in question, it is held by Ld. CIT(A) that since it is a big plot, reduction has to be made in the area of the land to the extent of 10% on account of common plot and 25% for internal roads/other development charges. In this regard, we feel that as per Section 50C, if the value as per stamp valuation authority is higher, the same should be adopted. Now, the stamp duty rate for a big and small plot is not different. Hence, in our considered opinion, the adjustment made by Ld. CIT(A) by reducing land area to the extent of 35% is not justified. We reverse the same. - The 3rd aspect is this that it is admitted position of facts that the assessee was having 18.10% share in the land in question and the entire land was acquired by the State Government for SRP camp and the total consideration was worked out for 18.10% share of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 5,99,68,115/-. From this amount, there was deduction made of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
