TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the valuation done for the same property but had preferred to take into account adjacent building without any reason. We find considerable cogency in the assessee s submissions that DVO s approach is not correct. DVO has done the valuation in a very arbitrary manner. He has preferred rates of nearby plots despite noting himself an instance of lower rate in the same building. When this was pointed out to Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee, CIT(A) rejected the same by holding valuation adopted by assessee s valuer also has no value. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the view of CIT(A). The assessee s valuer has duly mentioned and taken into account these instances of the same building. This as per the ratio emanating from the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has sold a flat in Arcadia building Mumbai for a consideration of Rs.1,51,00,000/-. From the sale deed, the Assessing Officer found that circle rate of the property was at Rs.1,78,00,500/-. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act. In reply of the show cause notice, the assessee furnished a copy of valuation done by Anmol Sekhri Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in respect of property sold during the year. The Assessing Officer noted that as per the valuation report, fair market value was less than the circle rate. The Assessing Officer sent the matter to the DVO. Since, the matter was getting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 18,323/- 83 01.11.2013 3 Rs. 1,52,01,500/- Rs. 1,35,60,000/- 666.18 (61.89 Sq. Mtr.) Rs. 20,355/- 84 05.04.2013 Rate Per Sa. Ft. of the Impugned Property S. No. Market Value of the Property Sale Consideration Received Area (In Sq. Ft.) Rate (Per Sq. Ft.) (Sale Consideration/ Area) Page Number of Paper Book Date of Sale 1 Rs. 1,78,00,500/- Rs. 1,51,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luer s report who had valued the property on the basis of sale instances of the same locality had to be taken into account and the valuation report of the DVO who valued the FMV of the property on the basis of certain instances of sales of plots in a different locality was not to be considered. This clearly lays down that comparison should be done among instances which are relatively near. In the present case, the DVO despite noting the instances himself has not followed the valuation done for the same property but had preferred to take into account adjacent building without any reason. We find considerable cogency in the assessee s submissions that DVO s approach is not correct. We note that DVO has done the valuation of the following basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Donat Joaquim Pimenta/Mr. Niranjan Balubhai Pandya 54.46 16200000 297466 2818/ 2014 After considering various pros and cons and various factors such as time lag, floor rise, size, location which influences the fair market value of the property, the proposed BUA rate for Fair Market Rate of the subject unit as on 17.06.2014 is Rs.296430/- per Sqm. 9. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the DVO has done the valuation in a very arbitrary manner. He has preferred rates of nearby plots despite noting himself an instance of lower rate in the same building. When this was pointed out to Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee, the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
