TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the area. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that sale consideration as agreed between the parties and reflected in the sale deed is representing correct fair market price of the property in question. Hence, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on this account is deleted. Cost of acquisition as well cost of construction - CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate her claim that ground floor of the property was constructed in the year 1984-85 - HELD THAT:- AO as well as the DVO has accepted the construction of the ground floor in the financial year 1984-85 and first floor in financial year 2002-03. Therefore, there is no basis for doubting the year of construction as claimed by the assessee. We are of the considered view that average indexed cost taken by the assessee as well as by the AO would be a just and reasonable amount of cost of construction. Accordingly, the average of two amounts comes to ₹ 5,68,056/- and the same shall be allowed as deduction on account of indexed cost of construction. The AO is directed to recompute the Long Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id ab initio. -GNK Drivershafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) -CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 and -CIT vs. Trend Electronics (Bom.-HC) 4. Minus (-) points of Property: Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) 1st, Jaipur, has not appreciated various attributes, charges, encumbrances, limitations and conditions, of the Plot under consideration. The plot was in possession of the tenant. 5. Sale Price Vs. 50C: Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) Ist, Jaipur, has erred in taking full value of consideration of ₹ 24,86,065/- as against ₹ 12,00,000/- received by the assessee in computing the Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of home/shop at Gangapur City by applying the provisions of section 50C. 6. Proper deduction not allowed: Under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) Ist, Jaipur, has erred in taking the cost of construction in F.Y. 1984-85 at ₹ 36,560/-instead of ₹ 1,01,310/- and cost of construction in F.Y. 2002-03 at ₹ 70,265/- instead of ₹ 1,60,840/- on computing the indexed cost of improvement for the purpose of arriving at the amount of L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deficiencies. The ld.AR of the assessee further pointed out that this is a distressed sale due to the fact that entire property is occupied by the tenants and disputes for getting the property vacated from the tenants are pending in the Court. Therefore, the fair market value of the property cannot be adopted as per DLC rate which are applied by stamp duty authority as well as DVO. The DVO though accepted the sale in question as distressed sale but allowed only 15% discount from the DLC rate while determining the fair market value of the property in question. The ld.AR of the assessee further submitted that the DVO has also not properly valued the cost of construction of the property in question. Hence, the ld.AR of the assessee contended that if all these factors are taken into consideration then the fair market value of the property cannot be more than the actual sale consideration of ₹ 12.00 lacs as declared by the assessee and also mentioned the same in the sale deed. The ld.AR of the assessee relied on various decisions in support of his contentions as under:- 1. Shri Narayan M More vs ITO (ITA No. 959 to 964/Bang/2014 darted 31-08-2016 ITAT Banglore Bench). 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the property is reduced only to 15% by the reasons that the property is occupied by the tenants and dispute is pending in the Court. We further note that the sale deed itself manifests the status of the property in question and it is explained in the sale deed that without any ambiguity at the ground floor there are 05 shops and at first floor there is a residential house. All the 05 shops as well as residential house are occupied by the tenants at a rate of ₹ 1210/- per month and ₹ 2200/- per month respectively. Thus the entire rent of the property is only ₹ 3410/-. Considering the status of the property being occupied by the tenants and tenants have already approached the Court for getting the interim stay against dispossession from the property by the assessee, it is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the property will not fetch a good price unless vacant possession is handed over to the buyer. Therefore, the assessee has brought on record the material which distinguishes the case from the normal transfer as property was occupied by the tenants at a meager rent and also dispute is pending in the Court. Certainly adverse factors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
