TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. The common area in the building which is clearly described in the sale deed and available for the purpose of ingress, aggress as well as common use cannot be added to the area of these offices but certainly these facilities available to the offices sold by the assessee would increase fair market prices of the offices in question. Accordingly, AO/DVO is directed to determine the fair market value by considering these common are as a positives factor while determining the fair market value of the offices but the common area cannot be considered as the area sold by the assessee when only offices are sold. Hence, the impugned order is modified accordingly. - MA No. 57/JP/2019, ITA No. 1131/JP/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the correct and actual area sold by the assessee. 3. On the other hand, ld DR has submitted that the common area is part and parcel of the offices sold by the assessee, therefore, DVO has rightly added to the area of the offices to the extent of 36.31 sq. mt. on account of common area. Thus, there is no mistake in the impugned order of the Tribunal which can be rectified U/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and careful perused the impugned order of the tribunal. The assessee is seeking for rectification of mistake in the impugned order of the Tribunal in respect of finding given in para 6 as under:- 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value adopted by the stamp duty authority, however, if two components being land and building are taken separately then the fair market value determined by the DVO in respect of building is higher. Hence, the lower of the two valuations shall be taken for the purpose of making addition. However, we find that the DVO while determining the fair market value has taken incorrect facts into consideration. The DVO has considered the built-up area of the offices by taking incorrect facts that these offices are at third floor whereas the stamp duty authority has taken built up area of the offices being at second floor of the complex. We further note that as per sale deed these two offices are situated at second floor and not at third floor, for whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation should be based on correct facts. Now, the assessee has pointed that while setting aside the issue the Tribunal has not commented regarding actual area sold by the assessee. We find that the AO/DVO has considered the total area of these two offices at 283.80 sq. mt. as against area of 247.49 sq. mt. sold by the assessee as per sale deed. The AO/DVO added the common area of 36.31 sq. mt. in the area of these two office. We note that what is sold by the assessee is the offices no. 202 203 and the area as per sale deed shall be considered as the actual area sold by the assessee. The common area in the building which is clearly described in the sale deed and available for the purpose of ingress, aggress as well as common use cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
