TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arison to that, which has larger area. Therefore, the argument of Mr.Ravi Kumar, that, since, the Cathedral Road property had a larger area as against that of the subject property and hence, ought not to be used as a measure, has no weight. Furthermore, as noticed above, the assessee himself has discounted the per ground rate of the Cathedral property which was calculated at ₹ 6,83,333/- per ground to ₹ 5,00,000/- per ground. In addition to this fact, as has been noted by us in the course of narration of events, the value of the building as obtaining in 1983 was also pared down to ₹ 6,87,500/- (i.e. 46% of ₹ 15,00,000/- which was arrived at based on the construction contract dated 23.02.1983). Therefore, given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.The issue, which came up for consideration before the Tribunal was as to whether the indexed cost of acquisition calculated by the Assessee, which was pegged at ₹ 1,20,03,750/-, by adopting the fair market value of the land and building as on 01.04.1981, at ₹ 20,62,500/-, was correct or not. 3.In order to adjudicate upon the present appeal, the following facts are required to be noticed: 3.1.The Assessee had filed her income-tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-2010, on 01.08.2009 wherein, she admitted a total income amounting to ₹ 1,00,38,686/-. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The Assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny and accordingly, notices were issued to her under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e land was concerned, it was calculated based on what it would be in 1981, and accordingly, was pegged at ₹ 5,00,000/- per ground; the cumulative value being ₹ 13,75,000/-. In so far as fixtures and fittings and what remained of the building was concerned, the fair market value was calculated, as on 01.04.1981, and was pegged at ₹ 6,87,500/- (46% of ₹ 15,00,000/-, which was arrived at based on the construction contract dated 23.02.1983). 3.6. The per ground cumulative value of both the land and fixtures and fittings and the debris would, approximately, by this calculation come to ₹ 7,50,000/- per ground, which is what is noted by the Assessing Officer. The cumulative fair market value of land, fixtures, fitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.2,31,03,175 Taxable Long Term Capital Gain Rs.2,05,86,210 4. As indicated above, the long term capital gain, which the Assessee had arrived at, was a sum of ₹ 93,57,975/-. It is in view of the aforesaid that, after factoring in surcharge, education cess, interests and taxes paid, a demand in a sum of ₹ 34,00,813/- was raised against the Assessee. Furthermore, notice for penalty proceedings was also issued. 4.1. The Assessee, being aggrieved, carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'CIT (A)'). The CIT (A) agreed with the Assessee, and accordingly, reversed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be less than that value on 1.4.1981 whereas the assessee has adopted 46% of ₹ 15 lakhs at ₹ 6,87,500/- and this is found to be a reasonable and acceptable. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant in adopting FMV of the land and building as on 1.4.1981 is directed to be taken into consideration for reworking the index cost and capital gains.' ....' 4.2. Dissatisfied with the conclusion reached by the CIT (A), the Revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue. 4.3. The moot question, as indicated above, which confronted the Tribunal was : as to whether the Assessing Officer could substitute the guideline value provided to him, by the Sub-Registrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is located in Cathedral Road were in an area, where commercial activity was and is being carried out is not disputed before us. In our opinion, one can take judicial notice of the fact that, ordinarily, the per ground price of a property, which has a smaller area, would be greater, in comparison to that, which has larger area. Therefore, the argument of Mr.Ravi Kumar, that, since, the Cathedral Road property had a larger area as against that of the subject property and hence, ought not to be used as a measure, has no weight. 7.1. Furthermore, as noticed above, the assessee himself has discounted the per ground rate of the Cathedral property which was calculated at ₹ 6,83,333/- per ground to ₹ 5,00,000/- per ground. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
