9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1043 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - valuation adopted by the A.O. - working of capital gain - reference of matter to DVO - Held that - Assessing Officer adopted the value at ₹ 1,56,95,100/- as adopted by the DIG (Stamps). The assessee has only challenged the valuation adopted by the A.O. at ₹ 1,56,95,100/- before the ld. CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) has granted the relief sought for by the assessee in his appeal. Now what is claimed in the appeal of the assessee is not a justified claimed. He himself has adopted the value for working out the capital gain at ₹ 52,40,700/-. Only enhancement was challenged before the ld. CIT(A). At the stage of CIT(A), the matter was referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer, who has valued it around ₹ 29,83,500/-. Now the assessee s AR claims that this value should be substituted for the value declared by him in his return of income. On this issue, we are of the view that once the assessee has himself has offered the value adopted by the Registering Officer at ₹ 52,40,700/- and filed the return of income and paid the taxes. Then there is no scope for reduction. He has also not agitated this valuation before the ld. CIT(A) in any of his grounds of appeal. Only plea was to adopt the value at ₹ 52,40,700/- in place of ₹ 1,56,95,100/-, therefore, we find no merit in this plea of the ld AR of the assessee. After considering all the aspects of the matter, we sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Issues:
1. Challenge of adopting the value of property for capital gain calculation. 2. Jurisdiction of reassessment under sections 147 and 148. 3. Dispute over the valuation of property for capital gains tax purposes. 4. Charging of interest under sections 234B & 234C. 1. Challenge of Adopting Property Value: The case involved cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue regarding the value of a land sale for capital gain calculation. The assessee disputed the enhancement of the property value from ?52,40,700 to ?1,56,95,100. The Assessing Officer relied on the higher value, leading to the appeal before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the ITAT. 2. Jurisdiction of Reassessment: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of reassessment under sections 147 and 148, claiming it to be void ab initio. However, this ground was dismissed as not pressed during the hearing. 3. Dispute Over Property Valuation: The core issue revolved around the valuation of the property for capital gains tax calculation. The assessee contested the higher value adopted by the authorities, arguing for a lower valuation based on various factors such as unauthorized possession, location constraints, and land use restrictions. The CIT(A) partially ruled in favor of the assessee, accepting the lower value offered by the assessee for capital gain computation. 4. Charging of Interest: Regarding the charging of interest under sections 234B & 234C, the ITAT upheld the mandatory nature of interest charges, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on this ground. In the detailed analysis, the ITAT considered the factual aspects, legal provisions, and arguments presented by both parties. The ITAT emphasized the importance of the value declared by the assessee himself, which was significantly lower than the enhanced value adopted by the authorities. Despite the District Valuation Officer's lower valuation, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to accept the value declared by the assessee for capital gain calculation. The ITAT found no merit in the plea to substitute the declared value with the revised valuation, ultimately dismissing both the assessee's and revenue's appeals.
|
