9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 360 - AT - Income TaxValuation of property - Adoption of Fair Value - Reasonable adjustment to Fair Value - whether sale in question is panic sale - Held that - The underneath of flyover was left with congestion. The commercial activities were adversely affected so much so that people had either to close the business or to sell their property. The construction of flyover of bridge near the appellant s property was a negative factor and had adversely affected the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. The ld. CIT (A), however, did not make necessary modification though the same was within the scope of his powers as are contained in sub section (2) of section 50C of the Act. We, therefore, find substance in the claim of the assessee and having regard to the report of Shri V. Padmanabhan, Approved Valuer, who is technical person, allow 20% deduction on the rate of Rs. 2905/- per sq. ft. adopted by the DVO and direct the Assessing Authority to correct the fair market value of the property under consideration accordingly. - decided partly in favor of assessee. Regarding panic sale - held that - assessee has not laid any material on record to substantiate that there was such compulsion for making repayment of loan by him by way of sale of his immovable property nor has he proved utilization of his funds towards making repayment of loan, if any earlier raised by him. - Decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of market value of plot. 2. Rejection of cost of improvement in property. 3. Classification of rent received from Industrial Shed. 4. Valuation of property and adherence to statutory provisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Market Value of Plot: The learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the market value of the plot at Rs. 1,09,92,000/- against Rs. 70,00,000/- received. The assessee sold the commercial plot for Rs. 70 lacs to M/s. PACL India Ltd., Jaipur, against the DLC value of Rs. 1,39,44,000/-. The assessee objected to the application of the DLC value and requested a reference under section 50C(2) of the I.T. Act. The DVO valued the property at Rs. 1,39,44,000/- by applying DLC rates. The CIT (A) corrected the DVO's rate to Rs. 2290/- per sq. ft., resulting in a market value of Rs. 1,09,92,000/-. The Tribunal upheld this correction, rejecting the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 286/JP/2012). 2. Rejection of Cost of Improvement in Property: The assessee claimed improvement costs of Rs. 22,180/- in the assessment year 1997-98 and Rs. 12,692/- in 2005-06. The CIT (A) rejected these costs, ignoring their appearance in the related years' balance sheets. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Authority to verify these costs and decide in accordance with the law after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 3. Classification of Rent Received from Industrial Shed: The CIT (A) held the rent received from the Industrial Shed as Property Income instead of Business Income, which the Department had consistently accepted. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's ground and upheld the classification of rent as Income from House Property. 4. Valuation of Property and Adherence to Statutory Provisions: The CIT (A) reduced the fair value of the property from Rs. 1,39,44,000/- to Rs. 1,09,92,000/- and rejected the DVO's report without affording an opportunity of being heard to the DVO, violating section 23A(6)(a) of the W.T. Act. The Tribunal noted that the DVO had not considered the negative impact of a nearby flyover on the property's value, which was a significant factor. The Tribunal allowed a 20% deduction on the rate of Rs. 2905/- per sq. ft. due to the flyover's proximity, directing the Assessing Authority to correct the fair market value accordingly. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's claim for a 10% rebate due to panic selling, as no substantial evidence was provided. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 248/JP/2012) for statistical purposes and dismissed all other appeals (ITA No. 286/JP/2012, ITA No. 249/JP/2012, and ITA No. 282/JP/2012). The order was pronounced in the open court on 24.5.2013.
|
