9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 996 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - adoption of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 by assessee - ascertaining the fair market value of the property - non reference to DVO - assessee sold 75.046 cents of land together with two residential houses for a total sale consideration of ₹ 4,75,52,850/- and land was purchased prior to 1981. The assessee estimated the fair market value of land as on 01.04.1981 - CIT(A) was of the view that the AO was not justified in restricting the FMV of the subject land as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 2992/- per cent and directed the AO to adopt ₹ 50,000/- per cent as Fair Market Value of land as on 01.04.1981 for the purpose of computation of capital gains - HELD THAT - It cannot be said that the value of the property which was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Kurian Joseph 2015 (3) TMI 484 - ITAT COCHIN is identical. As such, in the present case, the CIT(A) cannot determine the fair market value determined on the basis of the Tribunal order in the case of Kurian Joseph. Accordingly, we vacate the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. In our opinion, the fair market value is to be determined by the DVO instead of determining the value by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) without taking the technical expert s opinion. Hence, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to get the valuation report for the impugned property from the DVO and decide the issue afresh. Needless to say that the DVO has to consider the various actual transactions which took place during the relevant period and in the immediate vicinity of the impugned property. Hence, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Determination of fair market value of property as on 01.04.1981 for computation of capital gains. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Kochi pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The Revenue raised grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s direction to adopt ?50,000/- per cent as the fair market value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981. The CIT(A) observed that the assessing officer relied on a registered document dated 19.01.1980 to estimate the FMV as on 01.04.1981, restricting it to ?3000 per cent. The CIT(A) compared this case with a previous Tribunal decision involving a similar issue and directed the AO to adopt ?50,000/- per cent as the FMV based on the earlier Tribunal ruling. The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the Tribunal's value determination in the previous case was not identical to the present case. The ITAT held that the FMV should be determined by the DVO instead of the AO/CIT(A) without expert opinion, remitting the issue back to the AO for fresh assessment based on technical expert evaluation, considering actual transactions in the vicinity of the property. The facts revealed that the property was originally acquired by a partnership firm and later transferred to a private limited company, which was then amalgamated with the assessee company. The land's value significantly increased due to improvements and commercial development after NH 47 was opened in 1980. The assessee argued that the FMV determined by the AO at ?2992/- per cent as on 01.04.1981 was undervalued. Discrepancies between the comparable land used by the AO and the assessee's property were highlighted. The ITAT considered both parties' contentions and decided to vacate the CIT(A)'s findings, directing a valuation report from the DVO for a more accurate determination of the property's FMV as on 01.04.1981. The ITAT emphasized the importance of considering actual transactions in the vicinity for a fair assessment. In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of determining the property's FMV as on 01.04.1981 back to the AO for reevaluation based on a valuation report from the DVO. The decision stressed the necessity of expert opinion and consideration of actual transactions in the vicinity for an accurate assessment of the fair market value.
|
