TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside to the file of Assessing Officer to ascertain date of purchase of land and extent of land held by the assessee. Even before us, the assessee has filed necessary evidences to prove that extent of land held by the assessee is only 0.4 acres. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to ascertain fact with regard to extent of land held by the assessee. As regards land at Sholinganallur the assessee has sold property on 28.04.2011, just after 28 days from the date of valuation and thus, estimated price of the property as on valuation date shall be at least value derived by the assessee from sale of property. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the arguments of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty at Sholinganallur for ₹ 23,67,40,992/- based on the sale value of subsequent year, as against the guideline value of ₹ 11,95,28,640/- on the Valuation date 31-03-2011, which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 20 of Schedule Ill of Section 7(1) of the Wealth tax Rules for determining the value of assets. 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that the appellant is in possession of 0.8 acres of land at Bharaniputhur as against 0.4 acres claimed to be held by appellant. 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on the findings given in ITA No.84/CIT(A)-I6/AY 2009-10 wherein it was held that Thereafter, assessee Mrs.Sailaja Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but said delay is neither intentional nor to derive any undue benefit. Therefore, the assessee submitted that delay in filing appeal may be condoned. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed condonation of delay application filed by the assessee. 5. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not filing appeal within the prescribed time limit allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, and hence, delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a nonres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 23.67 crores, but as on valuation date value of the property as per guideline value is at ₹ 11.95 crores. The Assessing Officer has adopted guideline value based on the value fixed by stamp duty authorities in subsequent financial year. As regards land at Bharaniputtur, the Assessing Officer has adopted value at ₹ 24,00,000/- on the assumption that the assessee is owned 0.8 acres of land, but fact remains that the assessee is owned only 0.4 acres of land and market value of the land as per records is at ₹ 16.65 crores. Therefore, he submitted that appeal may be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue in light of various evidences filed by the assessee to justify value adopted in wealth ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10 and 2010-11, where issue has been set aside to the file of Assessing Officer to ascertain date of purchase of land and extent of land held by the assessee. Even before us, the assessee has filed necessary evidences to prove that extent of land held by the assessee is only 0.4 acres. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to ascertain fact with regard to extent of land held by the assessee. 10. As regards land at Sholinganallur, the assessee has adopted value of the property at ₹ 10.99 crores, whereas the Assessing Officer has adopted value of the property at ₹ 23.67 crores. The Assessing Officer has considered market value of the property on the basis of subsequent sale of property b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accept arguments of the assessee that guideline value of the property as on 31.03.2011, i.e. valuation date was at ₹ 10.99 crores and more particularly, when the assessee has failed to demonstrate said valuation with necessary evidences. Moreover, as per Rule 20(1) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, it is very clear that for the purpose of value of any asset, other than cash, value shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, it would fetch, if sold in open market on the valuation date. If you go by Rules 20(1), value of the property should be estimated to be price of the property, if sold in the open market. In this case, the assessee has sold property on 28.04.2011, just after 28 days from the date of va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
