9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (b) That the matter was referred to Valuation Officer after set aside by the ITAT and the Valuation Officer assessed the valuation of property at Rs. 29798550/- and in the appeal before the CIT(A)-I has restricted the same to Rs. 12532000/- considering the value considered for the purposes u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961. That the Id CIT(A)-I has not considered the important issues involved for the purposes of valuation. The written Arguments were given at the time of hearing and the same has not been discussed in the appeal order, hence appeal order should be set aside for further consideration to the restricted amount of Rs. 12532000/- for the purpose of long term capital gains u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961. That the appellant craves for permission to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 3. The only issue raised in the present appeal is against the adoption of sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,32,000/- on the basis of the stamp duty valuation under section 50C of the Act as against the sale price received by the assessee at Rs. 73,60,0000/-. The second part of the issue raised by the assessee is that the Valuation Officer had asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts of the present case, original assessment was completed under section 143 (3) of the Act vide order dated 15.12.2008 under which addition of Rs. 51,72,000/- was made under section 50C of the Act. The assessee during the year under consideration had declared income from capital gains on sale of land which was sold for Rs. 73,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer in the first round of assessment proceedings noted that the sale consideration adopted for the stamp duty purpose was Rs. 1,25,32,000/- and addition of Rs. 51,72,000/- was made to the returned income under section 50C of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 9. The Tribunal in ITA No.1010/Chd/2009 vide order dated 30.4.2010 remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer as no reference was made to the DVO for the valuation of the property. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after making reference to the DVO to ascertain the fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer and in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer in the second round of proceedings referred the matter to the Valuation Officer, Ludhiana vide letter dated 27.9.2011 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of the Valuation Officer are reproduced at pages 22 and 23 of the assessment order in which he had re-agitated the issue. The main grievance of the assessee was that the land was purely residential in nature and was even in the Revenue records declared as residential and there was no merit in valuing the land other than any other rate except the residential rates. The Assessing Officer noted that the valuation was conducted by the Valuation Officer as per the prescribed procedure after giving due opportunity to the assessee and while completing the valuation, deduction was allowed on account of depreciation due to nearness to the cremation ground at 10% and also for earth filling low line area. In view thereof, the Valuation Officer having valued the sale consideration of the asset at Rs. 2.97 crores as against Rs. 73,60,000/- claimed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer adopted the value at Rs. 2.97 crores in order to work out the income of the assessee. 10. Before the CIT (Appeals) the plea of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer had ignored the definition of section 50C of the Act which clearly indicated that the Assessing Officer was bound to adopt the same value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dential area as mentioned in the registration deed. The rate list as per Stamp duty Act is placed in first paper book at page no. 21 & 22 and the correct residential rate mentioned is on paper book page 22. 2. The Fard of the property clearly mentions residential area and the registration deed clearly mentions Gandhi nagar residential area. The Fard is placed in second paper book at page 94 in English version and page 95 in Punjabi version. 3. The Agreement to Sell was given to the valuation officer which has not been considered at the time of valuation of the property. The Agreement to Sell contains payments through cheques which are dated 06.11.2004. In the agreement to sell it is clearly mentioned that Rs. 250000/- dated 06.11.2004 vide Cheque no. 439607 has been received and amount of Rs. 250000/- dated 06.11.2004 through cheque no. 261632 has been received. The document is attached in the second paper book at page no. 1 & 2 in English version. The VO has not considered this fact while preparing the valuation report and this fact is mentioned in the assessment order at page 15 under the para 4.6 at point 1. 4. The said property in question was in occupation with the tenant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... changed by the Valuation Officer. Even the comments of the assessee are mentioned in the assessment order at page20&21frompoint no. 1 to 6 and the same may please be referred. b) At the time of valuation of the said plot the valuation officer has given 25% rebate on the rear portion of 1550 Sq. Yds. The rate of this portion is taken at Rs. 8200/- per Sq. Yds and the front portion has been considered at Rs. 11000/- per Sq. Yds inspite of the fact that property in question. The whole property is in question uneven and the size of plot is very big. This issue has not been considered by the CIT (A) during the proceedings. The valuation officer has not considered the uneven sides of east, west, north and south sides as per map and the property cannot fetch the same value as per normal equal sides of plot. This issue also has not been considered by the CIT (A) and the complete details given on page14&15at point no. 2 of the AO's order. c) The property in question as per Agreement to Sell was in possession of some other person and this issue has not been considered by the CIT (A) during the proceedings. It is clearly mentioned in the Agreement to Sell that property in question will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) in not considering the above said points and had made a prayer that the issue should be set aside to the file of the CIT (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh. 14. In the facts of the present case the Assessing Officer in the first round of assessment proceedings had adopted the sale value as determined by Stamp Valuation Authorities as the fair market value of the property and made addition in the hands of the assessee. The plea of the assessee before the Tribunal in the first round of proceedings was that there were several factors which affected the value of the property which have not been considered by the Assessing Officer and no reference was made by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Officer and hence the said value cannot be adopted for determining the income in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal in view thereof, had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to make reference to the Valuation Officer and to determine the fair market value of the property on the date of sale. The Assessing Officer in the second round of proceedings had made reference to the Valuation Officer, who in turn had conducted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he valuation to the Valuation Officer on the objections raised by the assessee and the Assessing Officer then to consider the Valuation Report submitted by the Valuation Officer. However, under section 50C(3) of the Act, it is provided that in cases where value of the property as determined by the Valuation Officer is higher than the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authorities, then the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authorities is to be taken as full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. 17 In the facts of the present case the requirements of section 50C of the Act have been met with by the Assessing Officer by making reference to the Valuation Officer and in turn received Valuation Report of the property determining the value of property as on the date of sale. The learned A.R. for the assessee has vehemently pointed out various defects in the Valuation Report made by the Valuation Officer and the main grievance of the assessee is that the Valuation Officer has adopted higher rates i.e. the commercial as against the residential rates which resulted in higher valuation of the property. However, if we look at the case in entirety ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
