9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to bring any evidence on record to belie the cash transactions shown in the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee nor is there any such objection that such cash transactions entered by the assessee are not verifiable from the bank account - Appeal is allowed - IT APPEAL NO. 471 (AGRA) OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2011 - P.K. BANSAL, H.S. SIDHU, JJ. Rajendra Sharma for the Appellant. Vinod Kumar for the Respondent. ORDER P.K. Bansal, Accountant Member. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15-10-2009 of CIT(A), Ghaziabad by taking following effective grounds : ''1. That the Authorities below have erred on facts as well as in law while sustaining the addition for Rs. 16,02,400 under the head long term capital gain by ignoring the value of land as on 31-3-81 as taken by assessee, based on the valuation report of approved valuer filed before the Assessing Officer, the value as worked out in the valuation report is liable to be adopted for computing the capital gain, the value adopted by the Assessing Officer (on the basis of report of Income-tax Inspector) is without any basis, no addition on this score is called for, ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s discussed above. = 2.5 12,300 = 30,750 Indexed cost of acquisition = 30,750 480/100 = 1,47,600 Sale consideration of land as per provision of section 50C = 17,50,000 Hence, long-term capital gain = 17,50,000 1,47,600 = 16,02,400. 3. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A), where the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer has not given any reason for not accepting the valuation report of the registered valuer, but relied on the report of the Income-tax Inspector, who is not a technical person. Even he did not give an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the Inspector. It was also pointed out that there is difference in the fair market value and the circle rate. The circle rate can be substituted under section 50C for the purpose of determining the sale consideration for computation of capital gain, but there is no provision which states that the fair market value will be represented by the circle rate. Had the Assessing Officer doubted the fair market value as worked out by the registered valuer, he should have sought the report of the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee prior to 1-4-1981 and the assessee has opted fair market value as on 1-4-1981 for the purpose of computation of capital gain. Fair market value is defined under section 2(22B) in the following manner : ''2(22B). ''fair market value'', in relation to a capital asset, means (i) the price that the capital asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market on the relevant date; and (ii) where the price referred to in sub-clause (i) is not ascertainable, such price as may be determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act.'' This is a fact that in this case, no rules have been determined for the purpose of determining fair market value. The assessee has relied on the valuation report which he obtained from the registered valuer who is technical person and duly approved by the department. He has submitted the copy of the valuation report. The Assessing Officer, on the other hand deputed the Inspector who brought the circle rate of the village where the land was situated and has adopted the circle rate to be fair market value. We could not get any provision under this chapter relating to the computation of the capital gain, which states that circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adict the report of the registered valuer. The registered valuation officer is a technical expert and the opinion of an expert cannot be thrown out without bringing any material to the contrary on record. The Inspector is not a competent authority. His report cannot be regarded to be the evidence to contradict the expert's opinion. In case, the Assessing Officer was not agreeable with the report of the Registered Valuer, he was duty bound to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the land as on 1-4-1981 which he failed to do. Even no comparative instance etc. was brought on record to reject the valuation report submitted by the assessee. Under these facts, we are of the opinion that the revenue has not discharged the onus but merely rejected the fair market value as has been taken by the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the capital gain after taking the fair market value of the land as on 1-4-1981, as claimed by the assessee. Thus, the ground Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed. 7. Ground No. 4 relates to sustenance of addition of Rs. 2,17,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
