2015 (8) TMI 75 - AT - Income Tax

Capital Gains - Determination of value u/s 50C - Calculation of capital gain by adopting the circle rate of the commercial land - petrol pump was installed on the inherited land - AO ignored the loan taken by the assessee for the business of petrol pump - The petrol pump was closed for last ten years - Held that - the objection is very much necessary in order to give proper justice to the assessee. Hence, in our considered opinion, the issue in dispute requires reconsideration at the level of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to refer the matter to the DVO to decide the aforesaid objections as mentioned in Hindi Language and thereafter the AO may decide the same after hearing the assessee afresh in accordance with law. - matter remanded back.

Issues:
1. Valuation of property based on DVO report vs. government-approved valuer's report.
2. Treatment of property as agricultural land vs. commercial land.
3. Disallowance of liabilities confirmed by legal heir of creditors.
4. Right of the assessee to modify grounds during appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the valuation of a property for assessment year 2009-10. The Assessee challenged the adoption of the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) over the government-approved valuer's report. The contention was that the DVO's valuation treated the entire land as commercial, disregarding the circular of the circle rate issued by the District Magistrate. The Assessee argued that the DVO's valuation was erroneous and not in line with the market value, citing a Supreme Court judgment for support.

2. Another issue in the appeal was the classification of the property as agricultural land as of 1.4.1981. The Assessee claimed that a petrol pump on the land was operational since 1972, contrary to the Department's assertion that it came into existence after 1985. The Assessee provided evidence to support the claim, including information in the sale deed and the DVO's valuation report. The disagreement arose from the treatment of the property for tax purposes, with the Assessee advocating for the property to be considered agricultural land.

3. The third issue revolved around the disallowance of certain liabilities by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The Assessee contended that the liabilities were confirmed by the legal heir of the creditors and supported by statements and affidavits. The Assessee argued that the disallowance was unjustified and contrary to the facts and the law. The dispute highlighted the importance of properly accounting for liabilities in the assessment process.

4. Lastly, the Assessee raised a procedural issue regarding the right to add, delete, or modify grounds during the appeal proceedings. The Assessee asserted the right to make changes to the grounds of appeal as necessary. This procedural aspect underscored the flexibility required in the appellate process to ensure a fair hearing and consideration of all relevant aspects of the case.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal directed a reconsideration of the valuation issues by the Assessing Officer in light of the objections raised by the Assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the valuation methodology and classification of the property. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to proper valuation practices, considering all relevant evidence, and ensuring procedural fairness in tax assessments.

← Previous Next →