9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 239 - AT - Income TaxComputation of long term capital gains - A.O. disregarding the L.M.V. of the transferred property as on 01.04.1981 claimed by the appellant - partial disallowance with respect to exemption u/s 54 - CIT (A) directed the AO to refer the valuation of property to the DVO for ascertaining correct fair market value as on 1.4.1981 - Whether rates of the registered valuer could not be rejected by the Assessing Officer without having referred the matter to the DVO? - HELD THAT - Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Raman Kumar Suri 2012 (12) TMI 421 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT had held that the valuation done by the registered valuer is with regard to a specific property and the same takes into account its various advantages and disadvantages all of which would influence the valuation of property. The Hon ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that the valuation done by an empanelled registered valuer of the Income Tax Department would certainly take precedence over other indicators. no option but to accept the assessee s contention that the Assessing Officer was not right in discarding the report of the registered valuer without having made a reference to the DVO and therefore the rate adopted by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of computation of fair market value cannot be upheld. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the fair market value of the land as on 1.4.1981 by taking into account the rate as adopted by the registered valuer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property as on 01.04.1981. 2. Computation of Long Term Capital Gains. 3. Exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Fair Market Value (FMV) of the Property as on 01.04.1981: The primary issue revolves around the determination of the FMV of the property sold by the assessee. The assessee had adopted a FMV of ?5800/- per sq. mtr based on a registered valuer's report, while the Assessing Officer (AO) computed the FMV at ?1160/- per sq. mtr based on average sale instances in the valuation report. The AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee, who argued that the higher rate was justified due to the property's special features. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that the valuation report itself referenced sale deeds with an average rate of ?1160/- per sq. mtr. The assessee contended that the AO should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) if he disagreed with the registered valuer's report. The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his powers by not referring the valuation to the DVO and instead computing the FMV on his own. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents, emphasizing that the AO is bound to accept the registered valuer's report if no reference to the DVO is made. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the FMV based on the registered valuer's rate of ?5800/- per sq. mtr. Computation of Long Term Capital Gains: The AO computed the long term capital gain at ?1,61,81,888/- by adopting a lower FMV and disallowing part of the exemption claimed under Section 54. The assessee's computation, based on the registered valuer's FMV, resulted in a lower capital gain of ?1,01,61,095/-. The Tribunal's decision to accept the registered valuer's FMV directly impacts the computation of long term capital gains. By directing the AO to adopt the registered valuer's rate, the Tribunal effectively lowers the taxable capital gain, aligning it with the assessee's original computation. Exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The AO partially disallowed the exemption under Section 54, noting that the property purchased in Mumbai had three co-owners, and thus only 1/3rd of the investment was eligible for exemption. However, the CIT(A) allowed the entire claim, acknowledging that the payment for the property was made solely by the assessee, making her the sole beneficiary. The Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision on this matter. The exemption under Section 54 was thus allowed in full, as the assessee was the sole investor and beneficiary of the new property. Conclusion: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on all counts. The AO was directed to re-compute the FMV based on the registered valuer's rate, leading to a lower capital gain and full exemption under Section 54. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to the extent it upheld the AO's computation of FMV and capital gains.
|
