TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the average rate for FMV is worked out to ₹ 210 i.e. (162 + 290 + 178 = 630/3= 210). The AO, therefore, accordingly directed to reworked out the index cost of acquisition by taking FMV at ₹ 210 per sq.mtr and re-compute the taxable long term gain, accordingly this ground of the assessee is therefore partly allowed. Addition on account of difference in Jantri Value by applying the provisions of section 50C - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee is less than 10%. Therefore, we hereby direct the AO to adopt the value as declared by the assessee. This ground of the assessee is allowed. We direct the AO to adopt the valuation of sale consideration as declared by the assessee. The additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s.50C is deleted and as grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - I.T.A. No.3204/AHD/2016/SRT - - - Dated:- 21-2-2019 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant Member Assessee by: Shri Rasesh Shah CA Revenue by: Shri B.P.K.Panda Sr.DR ORDER O.P.Meena, 1. This appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share, in long term capital gain. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) observed that the valuation report relating to lack of comparable sale instances chosen by the DVO in respect of 4 such instances, these are from the same village having rate per sq.mtr ranging between ₹ 64.062 ₹ 1900.371 per sq.mtr and the DVO has derived the FMV based on sale instances after making adjustment for shape, size, situation, location, time etc., vis- -vis land under consideration. Therefore, the CIT(A) taking a holistic view of the matter and the argument of the assessee and also two favourable sale instances having value of ₹ 188.68 and ₹ 190.37 held that value taken by District Valuation Officer (DVO) without taking into consideration other sale instance having lesser value i.e. approximately 1/3rd of the value claimed by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) further observed that the value determined by the Registered valuer was based on unscientific and ad-hoc method i.e. Gold Price Index Method, Reverse Index Method and the market enquiry not done by him. Nobody can deny that all these basis severely lacks symmetry of information and hence, lacks exactness. Nevertheless, the DVO has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered by the DVO are not of the same survey no. Further, the DVO has himself stated in his report that impugned land was situated at more appropriate location as compared to sale instances considered by him. The CIT(A) has also pointed out that the value determined by the Registrar Valuer was based on unscientific, ad-hoc method and DVO has determined the rate of reduction 162 per sq.mtr cost incurred on stamp duty, additional stamp duty, registration charges, legal charges. Therefore, considering the entirety of the facts and taking a holistic view, we are inclined to accept the ld.Counsel s argument that the average value as determined by Registrar Valuer of the assessee DVO and has considered by the CIT(A) would be more reasonable and appropriate for determination of the FMV of land as on 01.04.1981. Accordingly, the average rate for FMV is worked out to ₹ 210 i.e. (162 + 290 + 178 = 630/3= 210). The AO, therefore, accordingly directed to reworked out the index cost of acquisition by taking FMV at ₹ 210 per sq.mtr and re-compute the taxable long term gain, accordingly this ground of the assessee is therefore partly allowed. 9. Ground No.2 relates to confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee is less than 10% and in such circumstances no addition can be made. For this proposition, the ld.Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Bombay ITAT in the case of John Flower (India) Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.7545/Mum/2014 for assessment year 2010-11. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material and orders of the authorities below and the case law relied on. Considering the entire facts of the assessee s case, the submissions of the assessee cannot be ignored. The sale consideration of the land considered is shown at 5.11 crore in registered sale deed, the stamp valuation authorities have determined the full value of consideration at ₹ 5.60 crore. Even assuming for a movement that the sale consideration in respect of Plot in survey no.128/2 is less than the stamp valuation it is ₹ 3,06,250/- which is less than 10% of the stamp duty valuation of the said plot. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the decisions relied on by the assessee, the assessee should succeed in its appeal. The Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Sita Bai Ketan (supra) held as under : 4.2 We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
