2010 (7) TMI 784 - HC - Income Tax

Whether ITAT was justified in adopting the rate of land at Rs. 70/- per sq. yd. being the basic allotment rate by the Housing Board as against the rate of Rs. 1260/- per sq. yd. as adopted by Registered Valuer - plea of the assessee was that the cost of acquisition should be calculated at the rate of Rs. 1260/- per square yard as against Rs. 70/- per square yard applied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee relied upon the valuation report from a registered valuer and submitted that the allotment rate does not reflect the fair market value Held that - It was not incumbent upon the Assessing Officer or the appellate authorities to have accepted the report of the registered valuer merely because there was no other evidence to rebut the report of the registered valuer, No specific instances were produced by the assessee, finding of the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal, against the assessee cannot be held to be a perverse finding, appeal is dismissed

Issues:
1. Dispute over the valuation of land for capital gain calculation.
2. Disagreement on the valuation of the working shed and building/structure.
3. Assessment of cost of acquisition and computation of long-term capital gains.
4. Rejection of registered valuer's report by authorities.
5. Allegation of perverse findings by appellate authorities.

Issue 1: Valuation of Land
The appellant disputed the valuation of land for capital gain calculation, advocating for a higher rate based on a registered valuer's report. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) valued the land at a lower rate of Rs. 70 per sq. yd., differing significantly from the rate proposed by the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), emphasizing the lack of basis in the registered valuer's report for the higher valuation. The Tribunal deemed the rate of Rs. 70 per sq. yd. as justified, considering the evidence of land allotment rates by authorities and the absence of substantial support for the appellant's valuation.

Issue 2: Valuation of Working Shed and Building/Structure
The dispute extended to the valuation of the working shed and building/structure for determining the fair market value as of 1.4.1981. The appellant's valuation included the working shed, while the CIT(A) excluded it, opting for a lower valuation. The Tribunal directed a re-evaluation, endorsing the inclusion of the working shed in the valuation of the building/structure at 50% of the amount estimated by the registered valuer. This decision aimed to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the property's value for accurate computation of long-term capital gains.

Issue 3: Cost of Acquisition and Capital Gain Computation
The assessment of the cost of acquisition and subsequent computation of long-term capital gains were central to the case. The appellant's plea for a higher cost of acquisition based on the registered valuer's report was not accepted by the authorities. The CIT(A) enhanced the capital gain amount, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the cost of acquisition, emphasizing the importance of credible material for valuation purposes and rejecting the appellant's contentions without substantial supporting evidence.

Issue 4: Rejection of Registered Valuer's Report
The appellant raised concerns about the rejection of the registered valuer's report by the Assessing Officer and appellate authorities. However, the Tribunal clarified that the acceptance of valuation reports is not mandatory, highlighting the need for credible and relevant material to support valuation claims. The authorities justified their reliance on the rate of allotment by the Housing Board over the registered valuer's valuation, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence to validate the higher valuation proposed by the appellant.

Issue 5: Allegation of Perverse Findings
The appellant alleged that the findings of the appellate authorities were perverse, challenging the valuation decisions made in the case. However, the Tribunal dismissed these allegations, stating that the authorities' reliance on the Housing Board's allotment rate was reasonable given the lack of substantial evidence supporting the appellant's valuation claims. The Tribunal concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal, ultimately dismissing it.

---

← Previous Next →