2014 (2) TMI 1106 - AT - Income Tax

Valuation of the property - Property sold by the assessee Held that - There is lot of variation on the guideline value furnished by the Sub-Registrar and adopted by the Assessing Officer to that of the value adopted by the assessee of registered valuer s valuation the guideline value of the Registration Department regarding valuation of the property has evidentiary value and they are only intended to give information or instruction to the registering authorities but the guideline value alone is not a deciding factor - the Department has not made any independent investigation and collected any information with respect to any sale transaction in neighbouring land for determining the fair market value of the land and simply adopted the guideline value as provided by the Sub-Registrar and accepted by the Assessing Officer for determining the fair market value, which in our opinion, is found to be incorrect thus, the order of the CIT(A) set aside and the matter remitted back to the AO for examination Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of property for capital gains calculation based on Sub-Registrar's guideline value versus Registered Valuer's report.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerns the assessment year 2006-07 where the assessee, engaged in finance business, claimed long-term capital gains on the sale of a property in Chennai. The Assessing Officer disputed the cost of the property as on 01.04.1981, acquired through a will, and relied on the Sub-Registrar's guideline value instead of the value provided by the Registered Valuer.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing the authenticity of the Sub-Registrar's records in determining fair market value. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of evidence from the assessee to support a different valuation method.

3. The assessee, dissatisfied with the decision, appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the Registered Valuer's report should have been considered over the Sub-Registrar's guideline value. The assessee contended that the Sub-Registrar's value was not conclusive and referred to a High Court decision to support their claim.

4. The Department, represented by the ld. DR, supported the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that the Sub-Registrar's value was appropriately adopted after due enquiry. The Department argued that the Registered Valuer's report was not binding and highlighted the assessee's failure to object during the assessment process.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the conflicting valuations and observed discrepancies between the Sub-Registrar's guideline value and the Registered Valuer's assessment. It noted that the Department did not conduct an independent investigation into nearby sale transactions to determine the fair market value accurately.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the fair market value by examining similar sale transactions in the vicinity of the assessee's land. The Tribunal emphasized providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case during the reassessment process.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating a successful challenge to the initial valuation decision based on the Sub-Registrar's guideline value.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal and procedural aspects of the judgment, focusing on the valuation methods for determining capital gains on the property sale.