9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 with the delay of 74 days. The revenue has filed condonation petition giving administrative reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.AR has not objected for condoning the delay. After considering the submission of the Ld.DR, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. Cross objections are filed by assessee in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the determination of Fair Market Value by the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to sale of land. 3. Brief facts of the case are that for the A.Y.2008-09, the assessee sold a piece of land consisting of 545 sq.yds with ACC shed and admitted the capital gains of Rs. 6,30,820/-. The assessee has taken the sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO considered the objections of the assessee and not being convinced, adopted the market value of Rs. 8,034/- determined by the DVO for the A.Y.2009-10 and accordingly worked out the sale consideration at Rs. 43,78,530/- @8,034/- per sq.yd and computed the long term capital gains at Rs. 17,30,350/- after allowing deductions. 4. Against which the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and argued that the AO erred in adopting the market value of A.Y.2009-10 for the impugned assessment year and requested to accept the actual sale consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO is not permitted to adopt the value determined by the DVO for the A.Y.2009-10 for the earlier year i.e 2008-09. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, requested to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the assessee has sold the land situated in industrial area and the market value of the land situated at industrial area is to be determined by APIIC and this fact was not disputed by the AO. As per the value determined by APIIC, the land value was Rs. 6,000/- per sq.yd and no evidence was brought on record by the AO to show that the value determined by the APIIC at Rs. 6000/- per sq.yd is incorrect. It seems, no enquiry was made by the AO with APIIC with regard to restrictions imposed by APIIC for transfer of land. In general, certain restrictions are impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of capital gains. In the instant case, the Ld.CIT(A) has determined the fair market value of Rs. 6800/- after giving some reduction for annual increase and the department did not bring any material to show that the market value of the land in the impugned A.Y. is more than the value determined by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 8. The assessee filed cross objections(CO) in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), however the CO was not signed by the competent person, thus the cross objections filed by the assessee are defective and hence dismissed in limine. 9. In the result, appeal of the revenue and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
