9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After making some reductions for cost of building etc., he computed the value of the property at Lawrence Road Industrial Area by giving benefit of 38.75% in the year 2001. Since the valuation report of the valuer Sh. K.B.Sharma dated 22nd September, 1999 has not been placed on record, the order passed by the tribunal rejecting the valuation report of the DVO can be questioned and challenged as perverse – Decided against the Revenue. - ITA NO. 411/2010 and ITA NO. 1026/2010 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2013 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. For the Respondent: Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocate, . Mr. Manu K. Giri and Mr. Anoop Sharma, Advocates JUDGEMENT SAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional documents on record within two days. We record and notice that no additional documents have been filed on record except the remand report dated 8th August, 2007 and valuation report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO), Income Tax Department. 5. The Assessing Officer in the two assessment orders has relied upon the report of the DVO, who had determined the value of the property on the date of transfer at Rs.3,30,24,000/-. The Assessing Officer, however, felt that the report of the DVO requires moderation after noticing the fact that the property was leasehold and 36 years out of 99 years of lease were over. He also referred to the fact that the lease deed postulated payment of 50% unearned increase and determined the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... increased the value of the property as determined in 2001 by 41%. 7. It is apparent that the DVO report is flawed and defective on several accounts, which have been noticed in the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal. Firstly, the only one case was taken into consideration and the method of computation adopted by the DVO is rather far-fetched and based upon surmises and conjectures. Multiplication of 41 months at the rate of 1% per month itself is highly debatable. Difference of 38.75% is also debatable. 8. What had perturbed and created doubt was reference made by the CIT(Appeals) in his order in the case of M/s Ashoka Ice and Cold Storage to a valuation report of K.R. Sharma dated 22nd June, 1999. The said report was se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2005. 12. In the absence of the said report, which has not been placed on record, it is difficult to hold that the order passed by the tribunal is perverse. On the question of DVO report relied upon by the Revenue, we have already noticed that there are contradictions and the report is not reliable. The primary reason why substantial questions of law were framed in the case of M/s Ashoka Ice and Cold Storage on 16th March, 2012 and in the case of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal on 15th November, 2011 (orders to which one of us, Sanjiv Khanna, J. was a member) was the valuation report of K.R. Sharma dated 22nd September, 1999. As the said report has not been placed on record, we do not think the order passed by the tribunal rejecting the valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
