TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion before the AVO regarding the determination of value of the subject land and since AVO considered the valuation report submitted by the assessee through its M/s. Vastukala Consultants (I) Pvt. Ltd. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in determining the valuation of the subject land by holding the valuation adopted by the AVO is correct and proper. We are of the view that the CIT(A) considered all the submissions and contentions of the assessee and also the mandate contemplated under the provisions of section 50C of the Act in determining the valuation of the subject land for computation of Capital Gains. Thus, we agree with the reasons recorded by the CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are fails and are dismissed. - ITA No. 494/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2021 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : NONE Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30-12-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad [ CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2009-10. 2. This appeal was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .w.s. 147 of the Act. Before the CIT(A) it was argued that the land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land and no Capital Gains was assessable on the sale of such land. Further, it was argued that the land in question had been sold on 09-05-1997 through first sauda chitti (agreement to sale) and registration was effected on 13-08-2008. The assessee also raised objections apart from arguments as noted above. Considering the submissions of assessee and also the procedure contemplated u/s. 50C of the Act, the CIT(A) adopted valuation at ₹ 77,94,000/- as per the AVO‟s report as against ₹ 1,03,20,000/- adopted by the AO. For ready reference the finding of CIT(A) at Para No. 5 is reproduced here-in-below : 5. I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant. The facts of the case are that the assessee has sold her land at Gut no.196, admeasuring one hectare and 40 R situated under the Nanded Waghala Municipal Council vide sale deed dated 13.08.2008 to Shri Devrao Tukaram Deshmukh and 4 other co-purchasers for a sale consideration of ₹ 11,75,000/-. However the stamp duty valuation of the property in question was made at higher value of ₹ 1,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of such land. It was further argued that the land in question had been sold on 09.05.1997 through first sauda chitti (agreement to sale) however the date of registration of the document was 13.08.2008. Since there was a gap of 10 years therefore the valuation made by stamp duty authority in 2008 was not right. I have carefully examined the contentions of the appellant. However these are not tenable for the following reasons. It is seen that the agreement to sale dated 09.05.1997 (sauda chitti) is only signed by the appellant and not by the five co-purchasers including Shri Devrao Tukaram Deshmukh. It is not understood as to why this agreement to sale was not signed by the purchasers and and the appellant is also guilty of not explaining the same. Though it is signed by two witnesses however their complete addresses have not been given. Since the agreement to sale is not signed by the purchasers, I am not able to accord any cognizance to it. Further the amount of ₹ 11,25,000/- out of total sale consideration of ₹ 11,75,000/- was purportedly paid in cash as per sauda chittis. Had the amount been paid through cheques, it could have formed some corroborative evidence. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital gain is exigible to tax in the hands of appellant. It was open and freehold land. Further when the AVO, Nagpur issued notice No.AVQNGP/ NDD/CG/SOC/01/2015-16/147 dated 23.09.2015 to the assessee, she raised no objections against the assessment at ₹ 77,94,000/- in writing or person and this prompted the DVO to finalize the same at ₹ 77,94,000/-. The DVO has also considered the valuation report of M/s Vastukala Consultants (I) Pvt. Ltd. dated 05.06.2015 wherein the FMV of the land in question was taken at ₹ 37,24,000/-. Since the DVO has already considered the valuation report of M/s Vastukala Consultants (I) Pvt. Ltd., I do not need to consider the same again. The following comments were made by the AVO, Nagpur in respect of valuation report of M/s Vastukala Consultant Pvt. Ltd. submitted by the appellant. i) The valuer had not quoted any registered sale transactions during relevant period although there were many sale transactions recorded and had taken place in same locality. ii) As done by the A VG, the approved valuer of the appellant had also considered that the entire land would be developed into smaller plots and sold thereafter to different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be within the four corners of law. Whatever may be the problems suffered by an assessee, in reality those reasons cannot be permitted to go beyond the scope of section50C. While considering the report of the Valuation Officer, it is not permissible for the appellate authorities to consider personal and individual reasons, The relief granted by the appellate authority should be on the basis of apparent features of the property in question. The difficulties faced by the assessee or the matter of distress sale, cannot be the grounds to modify the valuation. Considering the above facts circumstances, I direct the AO to adopt the sale consideration of ₹ 77,94,000/- as per AVO's report instead of ₹ 1,03,20,000/- taken by the AO and re-compute the capital gains. These grounds of appeal are partly allowed. 6. On perusal of the above findings of CIT(A), we note that the CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee that the land had been sold in 09- 05-1997. The CIT(A) examined the contention of the assessee in the impugned order and held that the agreement (sauda chitti) dated 09-05- 1997 is not valid as the said sauda chitti (agreement) does not contain the sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
