2015 (6) TMI 59 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of capital loss - AVO adopted a detailed measurement method instead of rent capitalization method and secondly, the property was sold in distress - AO referred the property to the AVO and adopted the value reported by the AVO for calculation of capital gains rather than adopting the value of stamp valuation Authority and recomputed the long term capital gains resulting in an addition of ₹ 17,73,417/- (AVO S Valuation of property at ₹ 28,24,100/- minus Index cost of acquisition as given by the assessee) as against ₹ 4,71,150/ - Held that - We have perused the judgment of CIT vs. New India Construction Co. (1980 (2) TMI 64 - DELHI High Court), and therefore, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the present issues in dispute are required thorough examination at the level of the Assessing Officer, hence, we quash the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit back the issues in dispute, to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to decide the present issues in dispute, in accordance with the aforesaid directions of CIT vs. New India Construction Co. after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of total income
2. Computation of long term capital gain on sale of property
3. Determination of fair market value of property
4. Application of rent capitalization method for property valuation

Assessment of Total Income:
The appellant challenged the assessment of total income by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2008-09. The appellant disputed the total income assessed at Rs. 22,44,570. The appellant denied liability to be assessed at this income level. The dispute arose from the variance in the sale value of an immovable property as per the Assessing Officer and the Government circle rate. The Assessing Officer considered the sale value in accordance with section 50C of the IT Act, resulting in a capital loss calculation by the appellant. The appellant's objections to the valuation were rejected by the Assessing Officer, leading to the addition of Rs. 17,73,417 to the total income.

Computation of Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Property:
The appellant contested the computation of long term capital gain on the sale of a property. The Assessing Officer referred the property to the Approved Valuation Officer (AVO) to determine the fair market value. The AVO valued the property at Rs. 28,24,100, which the appellant objected to, citing the adoption of a detailed measurement method instead of the rent capitalization method and the distress sale situation. The Assessing Officer, after rejecting the appellant's objections, adopted the AVO's valuation for calculating capital gains, resulting in the addition of Rs. 17,73,417 to the total income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this computation, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.

Determination of Fair Market Value of Property:
The dispute also involved the determination of the fair market value of the property in question. The AVO valued the property at Rs. 28,24,100, which the appellant contested, claiming that the valuation method was incorrect due to the property being sold in distress. The Assessing Officer, after considering the objections, proceeded with the AVO's valuation for calculating capital gains. The appellant's objections were rejected, leading to the addition of Rs. 17,73,417 to the total income. The Tribunal, upon review, found the issues required further examination at the Assessing Officer level in accordance with relevant legal precedents.

Application of Rent Capitalization Method for Property Valuation:
The appellant argued for the application of the rent capitalization method for property valuation, citing legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case. The appellant emphasized that the rent capitalization method should apply even if a small proportion of the property is self-occupied. The appellant referenced a Jurisdictional High Court decision to support this argument. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both parties and relevant legal precedents, decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for thorough examination in line with the directions of the Jurisdictional High Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant for statistical purposes, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation in accordance with the legal precedents cited during the proceedings.