2023 (8) TMI 144 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 56(2) (vii) (b) in the head other sources - Valuation of industrial shed/ constructed portion - difference in value adopted by stamp valuation and the value shown on the sale deeds - CIT(A) adopted the average value of the cost of construction suggested by DVO and the registered valuer - HELD THAT - Assessee right from the beginning has taken a stand that at the time of registration of the sale deeds of both the plots the depreciation value of constructed portion was not taken into consideration. We find merit in the submissions of the assessee that when the plot alongwith the constructed structured was transferred, the depreciation value of structure (s) should be taken in to account while estimating cost of such construction. Assessee has placed on record the notification of Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamp, according to which the assessee is eligible for depreciation @ 1.2% per year. The structure/ constructed on both the plots were 19 years old, thus, the assessee is eligible for requisite depreciation. Further, the Jantri rate of Industrial shed in rural area is Rs. 11,200/- per square meter. Hence, direct the assessing officer to recalculate the value of industrial shed/ constructed portion @ 8646/- per square meter (depreciation for 19 ys @1.2 % i.e. 22.80% of Rs. 11,200/-). And to take the value of land of plot No. 4/B @ 580/ per square meter and for plot No. G-1 @ 600/-per square meter as there is no much variation in the rate of land in the report of DVO and Government approved valuer. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal concerns the valuation of immovable properties for the Assessment Year 2015-16, specifically focusing on the cost of construction and fair market value.

Valuation of Immovable Properties:
The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies in the valuation of properties purchased by the assessee, leading to additions in the assessment order. The Stamp Valuation Authority assessed the value higher than what was declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made a reference to the DVO for valuation, but the DVO's report was not received before finalizing the assessment. Consequently, an addition of Rs. 25,41,575 was made under "income from other sources."

Assessee's Arguments:
The assessee challenged the addition on the grounds that the purchased properties were old and in a damaged condition, warranting depreciation in the valuation. The assessee also objected to the valuation by the DVO, claiming it was based on erroneous comparisons and lacked evidence. The assessee provided a detailed submission highlighting the age of the properties, discrepancies in valuation methods, and the failure to consider depreciation.

Decision of CIT(A):
The CIT(A) considered the reports of the DVO and the registered valuer, ultimately adopting an average valuation of Rs. 9,490 per square meter. This decision provided partial relief to the assessee. However, the CIT(A) did not adequately justify the basis for the average valuation, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal reviewed the submissions of both parties and the lower authorities' orders. It found that the CIT(A)'s decision lacked sound reasoning and failed to consider crucial details from the DVO's report. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of comparing valuations accurately and considering real market prices. It directed the assessing officer to recalculate the valuation, factoring in depreciation and land value, resulting in partial allowance of the assessee's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, directing a reassessment of the property valuation to include depreciation and adjusted land values. The decision aimed to rectify the discrepancies in the initial valuation process and provide fair treatment to the assessee based on relevant legal principles and valuation considerations.