2013 (8) TMI 623 - AT - Income Tax

Valuation - Sale value being stamp value of the property by invoking section 50C of the Income Tax Act - Jurisdiction of DVO under section 50C for passing the order and others Held that - This action of reference to the D.V.O. has been taken by the A.O. on the direction of the I.T.A.T. Action taken by the A.O. on the direction of the I.T.A.T. is not incorrect rather it is in accordance with law. Correctness of valuation done by D.V.O. - The A.O. taken circle rate in calculation of capital gain on the ground that the D.V.O. inspite of valuing the plot has valued it as a constructed area on the plot - Held that - Value of the plot depends upon a number of factors including location, size, road on which the plot is situated, area and others. The Stamp Valuation Authorities have also certain criteria and basis for determining the circle rate - The ld. Authorised Representative is not correct in submitting that the D.V.O. estimated the value of the plot as it is a constructed area - The D.V.O. is correct in estimating the value of the plot as per the building byelaws of Agra Development Authority, Agra because that plot is having potentiality for constructing of many floors suitable for Nursing Home, Multi storey flat etc. Certainly, these are part and parcel of valuation of the plot No infirmity in the valuation made by D.V.O Decided against the Assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Estimation of taxable capital gain.
2. Legality and jurisdiction of the order under Section 254 read with Sections 147/143(3) and 50C of the Income Tax Act.
3. Reference to the Assistant Valuation Officer for valuation.
4. Method of valuation adopted by the Valuation Officer.
5. Applicability of Section 50C on sales based on agreements entered into before its incorporation.
6. Excessiveness of the taxable capital gain calculated.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Estimation of Taxable Capital Gain:
The assessee contended that the authorities erred in estimating the taxable capital gain at Rs.43,49,587/-, ignoring the evidence and explanations provided. The A.O. initially calculated the taxable capital gain at Rs.50,76,413/- based on the stamp value of the property. The CIT(A) confirmed the A.O.'s order but recalculated the taxable capital gain at Rs.43,49,587/-. The I.T.A.T. directed the A.O. to refer the matter to the D.V.O. for valuation. The D.V.O. estimated the fair market value at Rs.54,03,600/-, but the A.O. adopted the stamp valuation of Rs.53,01,000/- as per Section 50C.

2. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Order:
The assessee argued that the order under Section 254 read with Sections 147/143(3) and 50C was illegal and out of jurisdiction. The CIT(A) rejected this ground, stating that the reference to the Valuation Officer was in compliance with the I.T.A.T.'s direction and was a statutory reference. The CIT(A) noted that the Valuation Officer followed the procedures and considered the assessee's objections before finalizing the valuation report.

3. Reference to the Assistant Valuation Officer:
The assessee challenged the reference to the Assistant Valuation Officer, arguing that the valuation should have been of the open land and not the deemed saleable area as if there was constructed property. The CIT(A) clarified that the Valuation Officer used the development method, which was appropriate in the absence of reliable sale instances and approved plans. The CIT(A) found the valuation report to be thorough and well-reasoned.

4. Method of Valuation Adopted:
The Valuation Officer adopted the development method, considering the permissible ground coverage and F.A.R. as per the building bye-laws of Agra Development Authority. The CIT(A) upheld this method, noting that it was appropriate given the lack of reliable sale instances and approved plans. The Valuation Officer's report was detailed and considered the objections raised by the assessee.

5. Applicability of Section 50C:
The assessee contended that Section 50C should not apply as the sale was based on an agreement entered into before its incorporation. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that Section 50C was introduced by the Finance Act 2002, effective from 01.04.2003, and was applicable to the A.Y. 2004-05 in question.

6. Excessiveness of the Taxable Capital Gain Calculated:
The assessee argued that the taxable capital gain of Rs.43,49,587/- was excessive. The CIT(A) and the I.T.A.T. found that the valuation by the D.V.O. was justified and that the A.O. correctly adopted the stamp valuation of Rs.53,01,000/-. The D.V.O.'s valuation considered the potential for constructing multiple floors suitable for a nursing home or multi-storey flats, which was part of the plot's valuation.

Conclusion:
The I.T.A.T. upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the A.O.'s actions were in accordance with the law and the directions of the I.T.A.T. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.

← Previous Next →