Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 981 - MADRAS HIGH COURTIndexed cost of acquisition calculated by adopting the fair market value of the land and building as on 01.04.1981 - whether the Assessing Officer could substitute the guideline value provided to him, by the Sub-Registrar, as the market value? - Held that:- Pertinently, the fact that both the subject property, which is located in T.Nagar, and the, one, which is located in Cathedral Road were in an area, where commercial activity was and is being carried out is not disputed before us. In our opinion, one can take judicial notice of the fact that, ordinarily, the per ground price of a property, which has a smaller area, would be greater, in comparison to that, which has larger area. Therefore, the argument of Mr.Ravi Kumar, that, since, the Cathedral Road property had a larger area as against that of the subject property and hence, ought not to be used as a measure, has no weight. Furthermore, as noticed above, the assessee himself has discounted the per ground rate of the Cathedral property which was calculated at ₹ 6,83,333/- per ground to ₹ 5,00,000/- per ground. In addition to this fact, as has been noted by us in the course of narration of events, the value of the building as obtaining in 1983 was also pared down to ₹ 6,87,500/- (i.e. 46% of ₹ 15,00,000/- which was arrived at based on the construction contract dated 23.02.1983). Therefore, given the circumstances that concurrent finding of facts have been returned by both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.In our view, there can be no doubt that the Assessing Officer could not have substituted the guideline value for the fair market value, as has been rightly observed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. The guideline value is only, one of the indicators to arrive at the fair market value of a given property. The Assessing Officer, in our opinion, asked the wrong question by calling upon the Sub-Registrar, T.Nagar, to supply him the guideline value of the subject area as on 1.4.1981. What the Assessing Officer ought to have done was to ask for, perhaps, the sale deeds of property transactions carried out in the subject area in respect of similarly circumstanced properties. As against this, the Assessee, on her part, discharged the onus and therefore, no fault can be found with her conduct in proceeding with the matter.
|