9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 642 - HC - Income TaxComputation of Fair Market Value of the Land as on 1.4.1981 Computation of Capital Gain Tax Liability u/s 55(2B) Held that - No report of the DVO was obtained and the A.O. obtained one sale instance from sub-registrar office but regarding this sale instance assessee Contended that the sale instance is of a faraway place whereas, the sale instance noted by the registered valuer is nearer to the land in question - This contention could not be controverted by the Revenue - the sale instance obtained by the A.O. from sub registrar cannot be adopted because it is related to a land situated at faraway place and moreover, when the assessee has submitted the report of the registered valuer, the same cannot be ignored or substituted without obtaining the report of a technical person viz. DVO or some other technical expert. The report of registered valuer being a technical person, cannot be substituted without obtaining any DVO s report or any other report of a technical person - no such report of any technical person has been obtained by the authorities below - thus for this reason also, the action of Ld.CIT(A) cannot be sustained - the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 as declared by the assessee on the basis of a report of the registered valuer, cannot be disturbed and the same has to be accepted. The entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence - What should have been fair market value of the land as on 1.4.1981 is a pure question of fact - The assessee has based reliance on the report of the registered valuer who had given his opinion on the basis of 4 different sale instances - The Assessing Officer discarded such report and assessed the valuation on the basis of a single sale instances, details of which were available from the office of the Sub-Registrar - When the Tribunal, as a final fact finding authority, has come to certain findings which are purely factual in nature, no interference is called for, no question of law arises Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Computation of fair market value of land as on 1.4.1981. Analysis: The Revenue appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's judgment, raising questions regarding the Assessing Officer's authority in rejecting the fair market value of the property declared by the assessee and the computation of capital gain tax liability. The key issue revolved around determining the fair market value of the land as on 1.4.1981 for tax purposes. The assessee provided a report from a registered valuer stating the value as Rs.295.81 per sq.meters, based on four sale instances. However, the Assessing Officer disagreed and valued it at Rs.86.10 per sq.meters based on a single sale instance from the Sub-Registrar's office. The CIT(Appeals) further examined the matter, adopted a rate of Rs.156.50 per sq.meters based on two sale instances, and disregarded two instances involving partially constructed lands. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the importance of the registered valuer's report and the proximity of the sales instances to the land in question. The Tribunal opined that the CIT(Appeals) erred in ignoring the other two sale instances solely because they involved partially constructed lands. The Tribunal highlighted that the fair market value declared by the assessee based on the registered valuer's report should be accepted unless a valuation report from a technical expert like DVO is obtained. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the issue primarily involved factual findings. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's conclusion that the CIT(Appeals) erred in disregarding the other two sale instances and emphasized that the fair market value determined by the registered valuer should not be disturbed without obtaining a technical expert's report. The Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, emphasizing that the Tribunal's factual findings did not warrant any legal interference. Finally, the Court clarified that it did not confirm the Tribunal's view that the CIT(Appeals) could not dispute the valuation without seeking the DVO's opinion.
|
