TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with law and without any basis or evidence in his possession, did not accept report of the Registered Valuer. In the absence of any material on record, AO 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 AO 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:- 9-7-2015 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er noticed from the valuation report that the valuation was done at 3.5 times of the sale rate as per the registered deed in 1981 @ 24,000/-per kanal. For the sake of ready reference, relevant portion of the valuer report is reproduced below : i) There are 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 sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the sale rate of this land was much more than the rate at which other lands were registered in that area. 6. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering submission of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. His findings in para 3.3 to 3.3.3 are reproduced as under : 3.3 I have considered the 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed valuer was accepted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Hon'ble Tribunal had confirmed the findings of ld. CIT(Appeals). The department field further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the valuation of capital asset in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Court had held as under in 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the issue decided by the Hon'ble Court. The ratio of this judgement is accordingly not applicable to the case of the Appellant (ii) Chandani Bhochar (supra) In this case, the Assessing Officer applied the provisions of Section 50C for computing unexplained investment in property and making addition under section 69B of the Act. The addition made was deleted in first appeal and the order 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 sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be on the safer side he was adopting it to be at 3.5 times of what was shown in the registration deed. At the outset, it may be mentioned that there was no scientific/rational basis for the registered valuer to take the rate of 3.5 times of the rate of registration. Moreover, if he was taking the cost of acquisition at 3.5 times of the registered deed, the same factor/multiplier should have been used for declaring the sale consideration which 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
