2015 (7) TMI 488 - HC - Income Tax

Capital gains on account of the transfer of the immovable properties - ITAT directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the value as on 01.04.1981 at the rate of ₹ 2,833/- per marla ignoring report of the Valuation Officer who took 12 instances including 2 sale instances given by the assessee in arriving at value of 1118 per marla of the land as on 01.04.1981 - Held that - The Tribunal s reliance upon the instances of sale furnished by the assessee cannot be said to be perverse or irrational. Absent anything else, proximity of the land in question is not only an important, but a relevant factor. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the valuation of ₹ 2833/- per marla as contended by the assessee and rejected the valuation of ₹ 1118/- per marla as contended on behalf of the department. The Tribunal thereafter valued the land as on 19.12.2001 i.e. the date on which the land was transferred by the assessee/erstwhile firm upon the dissolution of the firm. In this regard, the Tribunal accepted the rate of ₹ 12,500/- per marla as contended by the assessee and did not accept the rate of ₹ 45,350/- per marla as computed by the Valuation Officer and accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal rightly noted that the sale instances relied upon by the Assessing Officer were irrelevant as they pertained to small piece of lands admeasuring from 1.5 marlas to 6 marlas, whereas the land in question was 150 marlas. The Tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had purchased land admeasuring 170 marlas at the rate of ₹ 12,500/- per marla on 04.01.2002, which was just after a fortnight from the date of the dissolution of the firm. Two important factors, namely, the area of the land and the proximity of the dates of the transactions were taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal on this ground cannot be said to be perverse. Adoption of the value of the factory building land sold on 01.04.2002 @ ₹ 12,500/- per marla which is a rate of agriculture land whereas the sale was of commercial property - Held that - Considering the age of the factory sheds, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the written down value as declared in the books of account ought to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal set aside the addition of ₹ 14,75,292/- on account of short term capital gains observing, inter alia, that the Assessing Officer had failed to take into consideration the relevant factors such as the age of the building and the condition thereof. - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of property for computing capital gains based on different rates provided by Valuation Officer and Assessing Officer.
2. Determination of the value of factory building land sold as commercial property.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Valuation of property for computing capital gains
The judgment addresses the valuation of properties for computing capital gains for the assessment year 2002-2003. The appellant raised concerns regarding the valuation directed by the ITAT based on the rates of &8377; 2,833/- per marla for 1981 and &8377; 12,500/- per marla for 2001. The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing the importance of instances of sale provided by the assessee, proximity of the land, and consideration of factors like area and transaction dates. The Court found the Tribunal's valuation reasonable and not perverse, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of factual appreciation rather than a legal question.

Issue 2: Determination of the value of factory building land
Regarding the factory building land sold as commercial property, the Tribunal considered the age and condition of the factory sheds in determining the written down value for capital gains computation. The Tribunal overturned the addition made by the Assessing Officer, citing a failure to consider relevant factors. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that this issue also did not raise a legal question. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed concerning the valuation of the factory building land.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's valuation decisions for computing capital gains on the property and factory building land, emphasizing the importance of factual considerations and the Tribunal's reasoned approach in both instances.