9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1189 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - reference of the matter to the D.V.O. for determining the Fair Market Value of the land as on 01/04/1981 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute regarding the market value as on 01/04/1981 with regard to cost of construction. The only dispute is regarding value of land as on 01/04/1981. In support of the value of the land adopted by the assessee for computing the capital gain, the assessee has submitted a report of Registered Valuer. AO has not referred the matter to D.V.O. and on his own, he has rejected the report of Registered Valuer and chose to adopt rate of ₹ 6/- per sq. ft. as market value of land as on 01/04/81. Issue is covered in favour of the assessee as the assessee has submitted the valuation report of the Registered valuer and the matter was not referred y the AO to D.V.O., the AO has to accept the report of the Registered Valuer regarding market value of the land as on 01/04/81 as claimed by the assessee. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gain by adopting value of land as on 01/04/81 as claimed by the assessee duly supported by the report of the Registered Valuer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Appeal against order passed by CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-2011 - Dispute over addition under 'Capital Gains' - Rejection of Registered Valuer's report by Assessing Officer.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-2011. The grounds raised by the assessee included challenges to the legality of the order, lack of opportunity for being heard, and the addition of a specific amount under 'Capital Gains'. 2. The assessee submitted a report of a Registered Valuer regarding the market value of the property as on 01/04/1981. The Registered Valuer adopted a value for the land at Rs. 7,02,674/- @ Rs. 12/- per sq. ft. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected this valuation and adopted a lower value for the land without referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer (D.V.O.). The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the D.V.O. if in disagreement with the Registered Valuer's report, citing relevant Tribunal decisions supporting this contention. 3. The Revenue's representative supported the assessment order, but the Tribunal analyzed the submissions and held that the dispute primarily revolved around the value of the land as on 01/04/1981. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not refer the matter to the D.V.O. and rejected the Registered Valuer's report unilaterally. Relying on previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that in such cases where the Assessing Officer does not refer the matter to the D.V.O., the report of the Registered Valuer regarding the market value of the land should be accepted if supported by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the capital gain based on the value of the land as on 01/04/1981 as claimed by the assessee and supported by the Registered Valuer's report. 4. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of following due process and considering expert opinions in valuation matters. The decision highlighted the Assessing Officer's obligation to refer disputed valuations to the D.V.O. for a fair determination, ensuring a just and transparent assessment process.
|
