Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (9) TMI 944

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... VO. AO mentions that he was not satisfied about the correctness of the report without bringing any material on record as to how the valuation report given by the assessee is not acceptable. Hence, at the outset, the reference to the valuation officer by the AO cannot be upheld. We have gone through the valuation report submitted by the assessee. FMV has been determined by the registered valuer taking into consideration, the sale deeds from the Income Tax Department auction and from the other comparable registries. The land rate has been determined per sq. yards and cost of construction is determined at Rs. 120/- per sq. ft. as on 01.04.1981. On the other hand, the departmental valuation officer determined the cost of land at Rs. 6, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Act) against returned cost of Rs 28,97,254/- in order to derive the figure for capital gain on the sale of said property. The action of the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, unjustified and against the provisions of the law and such order shall be treated as null and void. All grounds of appeal are interlinked/same therefore, have tax effect of Rs. 3055310/- in aggregate/all. 2. Without prejudiced to the above provision, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi 42 has furthermore erred in law and facts by confirming the increase in the capital gain by Rs 1,28,97,046/- by the Assessing Officer on the sale of house property no. C-44 South Extn., Part-II, New Delhi by taking the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 of the said pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssing Officer in the capital gain arisen on the sale of property C-44 South Extn., Part-II, New Delhi and thereby completely ignoring the submissions made by the assessee and the valuation report of the approved valuer submitted by the assessee. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi 42 is arbitrary, unjustified and against the provisions of the law and such order shall be treated as null and void. All grounds of appeal are interlinked/same therefore, have tax effect of Rs. 3055310/- in aggregate/all. 3. Pertinent facts culled for adjudication of the issue are that the assessee is a non-resident Indian living in USA filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 27.05.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,97,59 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as so claimed or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do, and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clauses (ha) and (i) of subsection (1) and sub-sections (3A) and (4) of section 23, subsection (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at Rs. 6,895/- per sq. yards and cost construction was determined at Rs. 53/- per sq. ft. The DVO has not considered any comparable cases of the relevant year while determining the value. Further, the DVO has worked backwards deducting 1.5%/month for 27 months from the value of 1983 rates. Thus, the DVO deducted 41.41% from the value of the properties in 1983 for determining the value in 1981. In other words, the DVO assumed a rise of 41% from 1981 to 1983. Hence, the methodology applied by the DVO has got inbuilt incongruencies, hence cannot be validated. 10. Ergo, we hold that the re-computation of the long term capital gains made by the AO as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, the appeal of the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates