TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allowed. - ITA No.1474/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2018 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM Assessee by: Ms. Deepa Khare Revenue by: Shri Sudhendu Das Order Vikas Awasthy, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune dated 20-05-2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee sold its land comprising in S. No. 259, Chinchwad, Pune and offered gain arising from sale of land ₹ 1,02,85,427/- as Long Term Capital Gain. The sale consideration as disclosed by the assessee in respect of aforesaid land was &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r stamp duty purpose which DVO failed to consider. The learned CIT(A) erred ought to have considered the various factors affecting the price of the land while deciding the fair market value. 3. The appellant craves to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Ms. Deepa Khare appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee has sold the land for ₹ 1,10,00,000/-. During scrutiny assessment proceedings the DVO assessed the value of land in question at ₹ 1,20,38,000/-. The difference between the value declared by the assessee and the value assessed by the DVO is approximately 9.43% i.e. less than 10%. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-. The difference between actual sale consideration declared by the assessee and the fair market value determined by the DVO is approximately 9.43%. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dattatraya Kerba Lonkar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) after considering various decisions including the decision rendered in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and the judgment of Hon ble Patna High Court in the case of Bimla Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has held as under : 8. We find merit in the submission of Ld. A.R. The difference between the fair market value determined by the DVO and actual sale consideration is ₹ 7,14,530/-i.e slight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss than 10 per cent. 14. We find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT V/s. Harpreet Hotels (p) Ltd. vide ITA Nos. 1156-1160/pn/2000 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue where the CIT(A) had deleted the unexplained investment in house construction on the ground that the difference between the figure shown by the assessee and the figure of the DVO is hardly 10 percent. 15. Similarly, we find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO V/s. Kaaddu Jayghosh Appasaheb, vide ITA No.441/PN/2004 for the asst. yr 1992-1993 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee following the decision of the J K High Court in the case of Hone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction for purchase of property, report of DVO could not form basis of any addition on part of revenue. In absence of any evidence no reliance could be placed on the report of DVO for making addition. 10. Thus, in view of the fact that the difference between sale consideration and the market value determined by the DVO is not substantial and is approximately little over 2 per cent of the actual sale consideration, we find no reason for rejecting actual sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed for determining long term capital gain. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt actual sale consideration as mentioned in the Sale Deed as a fair market valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
