TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t accept report of the Registered Valuer. In the absence of any material on record, Assessing Officer should not have made his own calculation for the purpose of computing the capital gains. The orders of the authorities below, thus, cannot be sustained in law. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and direct Assessing Officer to accept valuation reported by the assessee as per report of the Registered Valuer as on 01.04.1981 and accept the computation filed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1101/Chd/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - Bhavnesh Saini (Judicial Member) And T. R. Sood (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Navtej Kumar For the Respondent : S. K. Mittal ORDER Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e three sale instances available in year 1981, where on record registries are available with us, where big prices of lands were sold @ ₹ 48000/- per 2.0 kanals in the same area. This works out to be ₹ 1,92,000/- per acre. ii) As there was no Minimum guideline rates in those times (1981) for calculation of stamp papers and cost of registration was very high i.e. to the tune of 14% of land price shown in the registration, purchaser was interested in showing the minimum possible value of land properties. iii) But being on sale side, we are taking market value of the above land to be at the rate of 3.5 times than that shown in registration deeds of year 1981. It had a very good price ( as on 1.4.1981). 4. The Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission of the ld. Counsel Reference to DVO under section 142A can be made only in a situation where estimate of value of investment in accordance with Section 69,69A or 69B of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) or fair market value of property referred to in Section 56(2) of the Act is to be made. Reference to Valuation Officer cannot be made under section 142A for valuation of the property for the purposes of computing capital gain. Hence, the argument of the ld. Counsel that the Assessing Officer should have made reference to the Valuation Officer under section 142A is not correct and is accordingly rejected. 3.3.1 As per the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, where the consideration received as a resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case.: 14. We are of the view that whenever objection is taken or claim is made before AO, that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the (Stamp Valuation Authority under sub-section (l) of Section 50-C exceeds the fear market value of the property on the date of transfer, the AO has to apply his mind on the validity of the objection of the assessed He may either accept the valuation of the property on the basis of the report of the approved valuer filed by the assessee, or invite objection from 'the department and refer the question of valuation of the capital asset to DVO in accordance with Section 55 A of the Act. In all these events, the AO has to record valid reasons, which are justifiable in law. He is not req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the ld. CIT(Appeals) was affirmed by Hon'ble Tribunal and subsequently by Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court. Provisions of Section 50C are for the purpose of determining the sale consideration for computing capital gain and the value determined by stamp valuation authority for the purpose of computation of stamp duty cannot be adopted for computing unexplained investment under section 69B. Therefore, the Issue involved in this case was regarding Addition u/s69B whereas in the instant case, the issue is regarding cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 for the purposes of computation of capital gain, The issue involved being entirely different, the ratio of this judgement is also not applicable to the case of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not done. Be that as it may, the Assessing Officer has rightly adopted the rate of ₹ 24,000/- per kanal as on 01.4.1981, which is the rate at which the registration had been done in 1981 and his action in this regard is upheld. Grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are dismissed. 7. The assessee in the present appeal, raised the same issue and it is also stated that ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in up-holding the order of the Assessing Officer in over-riding the report of technical valuer, without supporting evidence from a DVO which is bad in law. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer, for rejecting the report of the Registered Valuer should have referred the matter to the DVO and in the absence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
