TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer noticed that in the relevant financial year, assessee sold its property located at H.No.8-2-544 and 8-2-544/1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad admeasuring 5600 sq. yards alongwith area of 6870 sq. ft. for a consideration of ₹ 31,25,00,000. The Assessing Officer further noted that while computing the cost of acquisition the assessee had adopted the Fair Market Value of the land at ₹ 1,000 per sq. yard and that of the built up area at ₹ 100 per sq. ft. as on 1.4.1981. The Assessing Officer disagreeing with the Fair Market Value adopted by the Assessee conducted an enquiry through the Range Inspector and found that as per the information obtained form Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Hyderabad (South), the Fair Market Value as on 1.4.1981 of land and built up area are ₹ 75 per sq. yard and ₹ 34.10 per sq. ft. respectively. He therefore called upon the assessee to explain why the Fair Market Value of the property as per the SRO valuation shall not be adopted. In reply to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted that the SRO rates cannot be taken as Fair Market Value as per settled position of law. It was submitted that the property in question wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases which were accepted by the first appellate authority as well as in some cases by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as against the SRO value adopted by the Assessing Officer, submitted that the Fair Market Value of ₹ 1,000 per sq. yard for the land and ₹ 100 per sq. ft for the built up area is reasonable and which is also supported by the Registered Valuer s certificate. It was submitted by the assessee that the Assessing Officer not only ignored the registered valuer s certificate but also various decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Benches with regard to adoption of Fair Market Value. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee in the light of various facts and materials on record relating to Fair Market Value adopted by him in comparable cases in different localities of Hyderabad as well as judicial precedents placed before him, came to a conclusion that considering the location of the property of the assessee at Banjara Hills, which is a prime area and its potential and future prospects, Fair Market Value of the land can be reasonably fixed at ₹ 900 per sq. yard. So far as the Fair Market Value of the built up area ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee further submitted that the jurisdictional High Court also upheld the authority of the Tribunal in determining the Fair Market Value of a particular property keeping in view the other relevant factors like the valuation made by the Valuation Officer by applying reverse indexation method. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee to substantiate his claim that the Fair Market Value adopted in the Registered Valuer s report is correct, placed before us a chart showing Fair Market Value of property in different areas being accepted at much higher rate by the appellate authorities as against the SRO rate applied by the Assessing Officer. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that in case of Wasif Hasan Latif, whose property was located at Masab Tank, which is just half a kilometer away from the assessee s property, the CIT(A) accepted the fair market value at ₹ 1250 per sq. yard as against ₹ 70 per sq. yard fixed by the SRO and the Tribunal also confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee referring to the other comparable cases, subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have consistently held the view that SRO value cannot be adopted as Fair Market Value. 9. Having held that SRO value cannot be considered to be the Fair Market Value, we have to now see whether the Fair Market Value adopted by the assessee on the basis of Registered Valuer s Report can be said to be correct. As can be seen from the Registered Valuer s report, a copy of which is at page 67 of the paper-book, the Registered Valuer, while determining the value of the property, though has mentioned in his report that such determination is on the basis of local enquiry made by him, but he has not elaborated the details of such enquiry or given any basis for his conclusions or any comparable case of sale of land in the adjoining area(s) to justify that the Fair Market Value adopted by him is reasonable. Therefore, the Fair Market Value of the property cannot be determined only on the basis of the report submitted by the Registered Valuer. However, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee has submitted before us a chart showing the Fair Market Value of different properties which are accepted by the appellate authorities as against the SRO values. The details furnished are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidences furnished before him, directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the Fair Market Value of the land at ₹ 1,250 per sq. yard and determine the capital gain accordingly. A copy of the said order of the CIT(A) is placed at page 7 of the paper book by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee. The contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee that the said order of the CIT(A) is confirmed by the Tribunal remained uncontroverted by the learned Departmental Representative. Similarly, in the case of Shri Ashwin Datla (supra), the SRO value as on 1.4.1981 of a property situated at Kukatpally, which is a far off area was taken at ₹ 8 per sq. yard. However, the Tribunal accepted the valuation made by the registered valuer at a rate of ₹ 750 per sq. yard, which was upheld by the Hon ble High Court. Similarly, as can be seen from the chart submitted by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, in almost all the cases, the Fair Market Value was fixed at a much higher rate than the SRO value, and the same was accepted either by the CIT(A) or by the Tribunal. So far as the decisions of the Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tentions of the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, he tried to justify the valuation of the land as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 1,000 only on the basis of the report of the Registered Valuer. The assessee has not brought on record any sale deed of the immediately adjoining area to justify that the value of ₹ 1,000 alone is the Fair Market Value. As can be seen from the Registered Valuer s report a copy of which is at page 67 of the paper book, the Registered Valuer has also not cited any comparable cases to justify the rate determined by him. In the report, he only mentioned vaguely that on local enquiry, he found that the market rate as on 1.4.1981 in the locality was ranging between ₹ 900 and ₹ 1100 per sq. yard. In such view of the matter, we do not find any apparent error on the part of the CIT(A) in adopting the Fair Market Value of the land at ₹ 900 per sq. yard as on 1.4.1981. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the grounds of the assessee as well in its cross objection, and consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A), even in the context of the assessee s cross objections, is upheld. 14. In the result, assessee s cross-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
