TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value of the property as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 1,49,525/- as against ₹ 11,30,525/- shown by assessee, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. He also prayed that the following additional ground may be admitted in deciding the appeal. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal as he has not considered the facts that the AO has not followed Sec. 50C(2) of the I. T. Act and he has not referred to valuation cell, therefore, the whole order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 2.1. After hearing both the parties the additional ground has been admitted as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was 11,900 sq.ft against 18,000 sq.ft. claimed by the assessee. . Further the assessee claimed value of ₹ 50/- per sq ft. for the building. No basis was provided for adopting this value as on 1-4-81. Considering the age of the building and the nature of the asset being depreciable asset, the A.O valued the building at ₹ 1,19,000/- as on 1-4-81. The A.O noticed that in the year 1963 the value of the projector etc were. valued at ₹ 4,700/-. Considering this value the A.O arrived at Nil value for the projector. The A.O rejected the assessee s contention of ₹ 1 lakh value for the projector. Further, the assessee claimed legal expenses of ₹ 10,00,000/-. However In the absence of documentary evidence this conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... First Appellate Authority and before him one of the grounds taken by the assessee was that the AO has not provided opportunity as per section 50C(2) of the Act and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to challenge the fair market value assessed by the Registering Authority and the matter should be referred to the Valuation Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee has objected to the computation of the capital gain and the value of the asset as on 1.4.81. The assessee has not objected to the proposed computation to be adopted as per Sec. 50C of the Act. Hence, the assessee is not correct in objecting to the computation of the long term capital gain made by the AO at the appeal stage. And, therefore, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
