2022 (6) TMI 1372 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain - CIT(A) adopting the fair market value u/s 50C - difference in sale consideration and guidance value - HELD THAT - AO considered the guideline value adopted for registration as sale consideration to determine the capital gain. There is a substantial difference between the value adopted for registration and valuation made by different valuers. The argument of the D.R. is that the assessee has not furnished copy of registered valuer report to AO at the time of assessment and only at the time of first appellate proceedings, he has produced it. Hence, no credence has been given. In our opinion, an appropriate opportunity ought to have been given to the assessee to reconcile the value mentioned by DVO and registered valuer and also with regard to the method of valuation followed by the different valuers. As submitted by A.R. that DVO has considered the value of certain property, which was not in the impugned sale deed which has to be excluded while determining the FMV of the impugned property. We also direct the authorities to bring more comparable cases for deciding the issue. With this observation, we remit the entire issue to the file of AO for reconsideration in the light of above.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fair Market Value (FMV) determination under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Consideration of the registered valuer's report.
3. Methodology for property valuation.
4. Inclusion of certain property values not in the sale deed.
5. Addition towards finance cost.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fair Market Value (FMV) Determination under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the fair market value (FMV) of a property sold by the assessee, which was determined by the CIT(A) under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) adopted a fair market value of Rs. 2,34,63,205/- based on the report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO), as opposed to the sale consideration of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- declared by the assessee. The assessee argued that the property was sold at a value greater than the guidance value and that the sub-registrar had incorrectly valued the property.

2. Consideration of the Registered Valuer's Report:
The assessee presented a report from a CBDT-approved valuer, which valued the property at Rs. 1,25,30,606/-. The CIT(A) acknowledged the existence of this report but did not give it due consideration, relying instead solely on the DVO's valuation. The assessee contended that the registered valuer's report should have been considered as it adopted the land and building method, which was deemed the most appropriate for this case.

3. Methodology for Property Valuation:
The assessee argued that the DVO used an inappropriate method for valuation, relying on the guideline value method instead of other potential methods such as the land and building method, rent capitalization method, development method, profit method, comparable method, or a combination of these. The assessee cited several judgments supporting the argument that the fair market value should not be based solely on the circle rates or guideline values but should consider actual market conditions and other relevant factors.

4. Inclusion of Certain Property Values Not in the Sale Deed:
The assessee also pointed out that the DVO included the value of a 470 sq. ft. property not mentioned in the sale deed, adding Rs. 21.43 lakhs to the valuation. The assessee argued that this inclusion was incorrect and should be excluded from the FMV determination.

5. Addition Towards Finance Cost:
The assessee raised an additional ground regarding the inclusion of finance costs amounting to Rs. 1,71,59,090/-, which included advances given to jewelry makers and an unsecured loan to Mohan Jewellery. However, no arguments were made on this issue during the hearing, leading to its dismissal as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and noted the substantial difference between the values adopted by the DVO and the registered valuer. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration, directing that an appropriate opportunity be given to the assessee to reconcile the different valuations and methods used. Additionally, the AO was instructed to exclude any property not mentioned in the sale deed and to consider more comparable cases for determining the FMV. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of finance cost addition dismissed as not pressed.