9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 119 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - valuation to the DVO - valuation of the immovable property for the purpose of Section 50C - HELD THAT - In the course of hearing of this appeal, both the learned AR and learned DR were directed to obtain and place on record an endorsement from the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar, prescribing the actual value of the impugned property, viz., Kino Theatre , situated at No.215/1, Subedar Chatram Road, Nehrunagar, Bengaluru as on 30.06.2012. DCIT has written to the District Registrar requesting for information in the case of the assessee. In response to the letter of the DCIT, the District Registrar had provided the certified copy of the guideline value fixed by the Government of Karnataka, covering the area (in vernacular). Admittedly, the impugned property is situated on Subadar Chatram Road between Anand Rao Circle and Seshadripuram. This fact is also confirmed by the AO in the remand report dated 30.03.2018 submitted to the first appellate authority. On perusal of the letter of District Registrar dated 29.10.2020, along with the relevant pages of guideline value attached along with the letter of District Registrar, it is clear that the impugned property which is located at Subedar Chatram (SC) Road between Seshadripuram and Anand Rao Circle is governed by entry No.157, where the guideline value fixed as on 30.06.2012 was much less than ₹ 10,000 per sq.ft. adopted by the assessee in the sale deed. CIT(A) s order accepting the sale consideration of ₹ 7.50 crore disclosed by the assessee in her sale deed is upheld as correct and in accordance with law.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Revenue's appeal 2. Valuation of immovable property for Section 50C purposes 3. Acceptance of sale consideration by CIT(A) 4. Assessee's appeal dismissed as withdrawn Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing Revenue's appeal The Department filed a petition for condonation of a 28-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after perusing the reasons in the Affidavit of the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, found sufficient cause for the delay. No latches were attributed to the Department, leading to the condonation of the delay and the disposal of the appeal on merit. Issue 2: Valuation of immovable property for Section 50C purposes The dispute arose regarding the valuation of a property for Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer proposed a gross sale consideration higher than what the assessee sold the property for. The assessee argued that the property was not on the stretch of road considered by the Department for valuation, providing evidence to support a lower valuation. The CIT(A) examined the location and guideline values, ultimately accepting the assessee's contention and reducing the valuation for tax purposes. Issue 3: Acceptance of sale consideration by CIT(A) The CIT(A) accepted the sale consideration reported by the assessee, which was lower than the value adopted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, after considering documents provided by both parties and confirming the property's location, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision as correct and in accordance with the law, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Issue 4: Assessee's appeal dismissed as withdrawn During the hearing, the assessee expressed intent to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal. In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed multiple issues in this judgment, including the delay in filing the appeal, the valuation of immovable property for tax purposes under Section 50C, and the acceptance of sale consideration by the CIT(A). The decision-making process involved careful consideration of evidence and legal provisions, resulting in the dismissal of both appeals.
|
