9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 710 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - valuation made as per section 50C - Asset demolished by the purchaser - AO by applying provisions of section 50C adopted the fair market value of the property - HELD THAT - Though the assessee has the physical possession of the property, but as per Revenue records the ownership of land rests with the Government of Maharashtra. It is also a fact that during the year under consideration the assessee had sold the land along with shed thereon to M/s. Millenium Marbles Pvt. Ltd., who was already in possession of the land - structure that was sold by the assessee was demolished by the purchaser and the structure was stated to have been in existence since the time of its purchase by the assessee. Assessee had got valuation report prepared by the registered valuer who had valued the shed at ₹ 2.10 lakhs as against the value adopted by the DVO at ₹ 69,64,713/-. When the shed that was an old structure and was demolished by the purchaser, we are of the view that the DVO was not justified in valuing the shed at ₹ 69,64,713/-. At the same time, we are of the view that the value adopted by the valuer at ₹ 2.10 lakhs is also on a lower side - we are of the view that if the value adopted in the present case is restricted to ₹ 20 lakhs, would meet the ends of justice and accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the value of shed at ₹ 20 lakhs and re-work the capital gains. In view of the aforesaid, the amended ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of fair market value for the purpose of computing long-term capital gains. 3. Validity of the valuation conducted by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue was whether Section 50C of the Income Tax Act was applicable to the assessee, who argued that he was not the legal owner of the property as per the Transfer of Property Act. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that the assessee had full rights to the property since its purchase in 1994 and continued to enjoy all rights including rent from the tenant, M/s. Millenium Marbles Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was the de facto owner and thus, Section 50C was applicable. 2. Determination of Fair Market Value for Computing Long-Term Capital Gains: The Assessing Officer (AO) initially adopted the stamp duty valuation of ?2,54,87,000 as the fair market value for computing capital gains, which the assessee contested. The CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the DVO's valuation of ?1,84,93,000 instead of the stamp duty valuation. The assessee further argued that the DVO's valuation was still excessive, particularly the valuation of the shed, which the DVO valued at ?49,62,358. The CIT(A) partially accepted the assessee's contention and directed the AO to adopt the DVO's valuation of ?1,84,93,000. 3. Validity of the Valuation Conducted by the DVO: The assessee argued that the DVO's valuation of the shed was unrealistic and excessive, suggesting a fair market value of ?2.10 lakhs. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that the DVO had considered all relevant factors. However, upon appeal, the Tribunal found that both the DVO's valuation of ?69,64,713 and the assessee's valuation of ?2.10 lakhs were unreasonable. The Tribunal decided that a valuation of ?20 lakhs for the shed would be just and directed the AO to rework the capital gains accordingly. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the AO should adopt the DVO's valuation of ?1,84,93,000 for the land and a revised valuation of ?20 lakhs for the shed. This adjustment was deemed to meet the ends of justice, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee. The final order directed the AO to rework the capital gains based on these revised valuations. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on January 14, 2020.
|
