9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 463 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain computation - application u/s 50C - valuation done by the DVO - FMV determination - assessee earned capital gain from sale of inherited properties - contention advanced by the assessee that the property was sold at a price lower than the market value as the property was occupied by some illegal persons and which is a precise reason for referring the matter to the DVO - HELD THAT - Various evidences were filed before the ld CIT(A) in the form of copies of civil suits copies of electricity bills copies of sale deed power of attorney etc in support of his contention that the property was sold along with occupancy of certain persons and it was submitted that said evidences were also filed before DVO which have not been considered by him while determining the fair market value. DVO has recorded a finding that at the time of inspection the building stood demolished by the buyer and thus he is unable to determine the value of the building. Therefore the fact that the building was demolished at the time of inspection is a finding of fact which is not disputed by either authorities and in fact the AO has thereafter carried out the valuation of the building on his own which goes to show that as far as physical presence of the assessee at the time of inspection is concerned the same should not have come in the way of the DVO in determining the value of the building as per the built up area and other specification so given in the sale deed. Secondly regarding the response to the DVO s letter No.93 dated 19.01.2015 we find that the assessee did respond to the said notice vide its submission dated Nil sent vide speed post on 31.01.2015. We therefore find that various contentions advanced by the assessee regarding determination of fair market value and evidences already brought on record have not been properly addressed by the DVO and even though the DVO report is binding on the AO and when the matter was brought to the notice of ld CIT(A) the later is well within her jurisdiction to consider those contentions and where so required the matter could have been referred to the DVO to seek his comments. Therefore considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that being a matter involving technical expertise and where the assessee has contested the valuation on multiple grounds and has brought on record various evidences in support of his contention the matter deserve to be set-aside to the file of the AO to call for fresh report from the DVO and decides the same a fresh as per law. In the result the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Estimated the fair market value of the property sold as on 01.04.1981 - DVO estimated the fair market value of the property being land as on 01-04-1981 at 84, 078/- ( 49, 063/- 35, 015/-) on the basis of comparable sale instance of the area - AO has completed his assessment by considering the fair market value of the property being land as estimated by the DVO - HELD THAT - Given that we have set-aside the matter to the file of AO for determination of fair market value as on the date of transfer the matter relating to cost of acquisition is also remitted to the file of the AO to call for a report from the DVO seeking valuation of land and building both and decide the same afresh as per law. In the result the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of expenses claimed against the professional receipts of the assessee - HELD THAT - We have gone through the order of the lower authorities and donot find any infirmity therein and hence the said ground of appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 50C of the IT Act, 1961, and adoption of sale consideration. 2. Consideration of property disputes for valuation. 3. Estimation of fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981. 4. Disallowance of expenses claimed against professional receipts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of Section 50C of the IT Act, 1961, and Adoption of Sale Consideration: The assessee contested the adoption of the sale consideration at ?67,36,715 (1/8 of ?5,38,93,718) by the CIT(A) against the declared sale consideration of ?25,00,000 (1/8 of ?2,00,00,000). The assessee argued that the property was sold at a lower price due to illegal occupants, which reduced its market value. The AO substituted the transaction value with the valuation done by the Stamp Valuation Authority, which was lower than the valuation made by DVO. The CIT(A) partially accepted the assessee's contention by reducing the value of property No. 9 to 14 by ?43,80,712 as per the DVO's valuation but upheld the valuation of property No. 15 & 16 as assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. 2. Consideration of Property Disputes for Valuation: The assessee argued that the DVO and AO did not consider the illegal occupancy, which significantly reduced the property's market value. The CIT(A) relied on judgments from the Gujarat High Court, which were not directly relevant to the issue. The assessee cited judicial pronouncements from Chandra Bhan Vs. ACIT and Ravi Kant Vs. ITO, which were not distinguished or followed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim, stating that the appellant did not respond to the DVO's letter and was not present during the property inspection. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had responded to the DVO's notice and that the DVO and AO did not properly address the valuation considering the illegal occupancy. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO to call for a fresh report from the DVO and decide the issue afresh as per law. 3. Estimation of Fair Market Value of the Property as on 1.4.1981: The assessee estimated the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981 at ?1,54,285 (1/8 of ?12,34,280), whereas the DVO estimated it at ?84,078. The AO adopted the DVO's valuation. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim, stating that the appellant did not respond to the DVO's letter. The Tribunal noted that the DVO's report did not properly address the valuation considering the illegal occupancy and remitted the matter to the AO to call for a fresh report from the DVO, including the valuation of both land and building, and decide the issue afresh as per law. 4. Disallowance of Expenses Claimed Against Professional Receipts: The assessee claimed a sum of ?11,500 as expenses against professional receipts, which was disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' order and dismissed this ground of appeal. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal remitting the issues related to the adoption of sale consideration and the estimation of fair market value as on 1.4.1981 to the AO for fresh consideration. The disallowance of expenses claimed against professional receipts was upheld.
|
