TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 passed in ITA No. 437/08-09/A.III for assessment year 2006-07, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short the Act ]. 2. In the course of hearing, the assessee would argue before us that the CIT(A) has erred in partly accepting the appeal qua fair market value of the property sold in question as on 01.04.1981. By submitting that it is entitled for adopting fair market value of the property sold as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs. .11,84,124/- per ground, which has been taken as Rs. .10,000/- per ground by the Assessing Officer and Rs. .1,50,000/- per ground by the CIT(A), the AR reiterates the pleadings in grounds and prays for acceptance of the appeal. 3. Per contra, the Revenue argues before us that the CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king a report from the Office of the Sub-Registrar concerned, he held in the assessment order dated 29.12.2008 that the actual value of the property as on 27.12.1983 was Rs. .10,000/- per ground and he computed long term capital gains of Rs. .15,86,33,581/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal. We notice from the CIT(A) s order under challenge that on a prayer made by the assessee, he had sought remand report from the assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer reiterated the value of the property as Rs. .10,000/- per ground. Thereafter, the CIT(A) has observed that the actual value stated by the Sub-Registrar cannot be the basis of determining fair market value as on 01.04.1981. Thereafter, he has proceeded as per case law of Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed by the State qua properties situated in a particular area or locality by following standard method. Therefore, so far as the value claimed by the Revenue is concerned, except the guideline value there is nothing else pointed out in support of the claim. Hence, we reject the argument of the Revenue aforesaid. 9. At the same time, we are also cautious of the fact that so far as the value claimed by the assessee @ Rs. .11,84,124/- per ground as on 01.04.1981 is concerned, in our opinion, the same is only in furtherance to reverse indexation method adopted by assessee s valuer, which is also not absolutely free from errors as from 1981 to 2006, the period of two and half decades has seen lots of ups and downs qua fair market value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
