2014 (1) TMI 1313 - AT - Income Tax

Valuation of property Computation of long term capital gain Held that - The assessee had adopted the value as per the registered valuer report whereas the AO had adopted the value as per the DVO who had valued the property as on 1.4.1981 - The DVO had valued the property on the basis of two comparable sale instances - the assessee had specifically asked for details of comparable sale instances so as to file reply in the matter - full details of property giving the name of the road and registration no. etc had not been given - once the DVO/AO is relying on comparable cases the detail of properties is required to be given to the assessee so that it could file proper reply - on the land/ property there was full-fledged structure which was used for ware housing purposes, value of which had been taken at nil - The matter regarding the valuation of structures requires fresh consideration as even the structure was old it could not be said that the value was nil thus, the matter remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legal validity of reopening of the assessment
2. Valuation of property as on 1.4.1981 for computation of capital gain

Analysis:
Issue 1: Legal validity of reopening of the assessment
The appeal was against the CIT (A)'s order for the assessment year 2006-07. The AO noted discrepancies in the valuation report of a property sold by the assessee, leading to a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The DVO valued the property differently, resulting in a higher capital gain computation. The assessee disputed this, arguing that no reference to the DVO was necessary as the registered valuer's report had a higher value. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that a reference to the DVO was possible even with a registered valuer report. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the need for a fresh examination at lower levels regarding the assessment reopening.

Issue 2: Valuation of property as on 1.4.1981 for computation of capital gain
The dispute centered on the valuation of the property as on 1.4.1981 for capital gain computation. The assessee adopted a higher value based on a registered valuer report, while the AO relied on the DVO's valuation. The DVO's valuation was based on comparable sale instances, but the assessee argued that insufficient details were provided for a proper comparison. Additionally, the value of a full-fledged structure on the property used for warehousing purposes was considered nil, which the Tribunal found required fresh examination. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing a reevaluation of the property's valuation, including the structures, and providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough reexamination of the valuation of the property and the assessment reopening at lower levels.