9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale - held that:- assessee has not laid any material on record to substantiate that there was such compulsion for making repayment of loan by him by way of sale of his immovable property nor has he proved utilization of his funds towards making repayment of loan, if any earlier raised by him. - Decided against the assessee. - ITA NOS. 248 & 249/JP/2012, ITA NOS. 286 & 282/JP/2012 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2013 - Shri B. R. Jain And Shri Vijay Pal Rao,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri C. M. Birla For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Malik ORDER Per Bench These cross appeals arise against two orders dated 25.1.2012 of ld. CIT (Appeals), Kota raise grounds in respective appeal as under :- ITA No. 248/JP/2012 : 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming market value of plot at Rs. 1,09,92,000/- as against Rs. 70,00,000/- received. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) also erred in rejecting cost of improvement in property at Rs. 22,180/- in Assessment year 1997-98 and Rs. 12,692/- in 2005-06 ignoring this fact that it was appearing in related years Balance Sheet. 3. That under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for valuation of the property. Upon reference, he furnished Valuation Reports from two approved valuers before the DVO. One approved valuer Shri V. Padmanabhan has assessed the value of property of assessee at Rs. 71 lacs as per Valuation Certificate placed at paper book pages 19 to 21 filed. The second approved valuer Shri Govind Singh Bapna valued the property at Rs. 72,14,400/- as per copy of valuation report placed at paper book pages 22 to 24. These reports are claimed to have been laid before the Assessing Authority also. Both the DVOs as well as Assessing Officer did not comment adversely on these reports. The Assessing Officer, however, proceeded to adopt the sale consideration at Rs. 1,39,44,000/- on the basis of the DVO's report and computed assessee's income from capital gains at Rs. 84,82,224/- and made addition on account of long term capital gain as under :- " Sale Value of plot as per Section 50C ( as per DLC rates) 1,39,44,000/- Less : Indexed Cost of Property As on 1.4.1981 Rs.998400*5.19 = 5181696 Addition in F.Y. 1981-82 Rs.23415*519/100 = 121524 Addition in F.Y. 1984-85 Rs.4374*519/125 = 18161 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o account. The DVO while valuing the property as on 01.04.1981 has taken into account the following factors :- 1) That the plot was open on two sides. 2) That the plot was a large size plot. 3) Time gap - The property was valued as on 03.04.2006 whereas the DLC rates were for the period 26.09.2005 to 09.05.2006, therefore the sale date fall within the period during which the DLC rate was applicable and there will be no effect of time gap. 4) Situation of plot on highway - However, it is seen that the DLC value relates to all the plots situated on highway itself and this factor has no impact on the valuation of plots. Considering the above, in my view the DVO should have taken into account the following factors (which were considered by him while determining the value as on 01.04.1981):- 1) That the plot was open on two sides. 2) That the plot was a large size plot. The fair value of property is worked out as under (after considering these factors);- DLC rate as on 01.04.2006 = Rs. 2905 per sq. ft. Add 5% for 2 side open plot = Rs. 145.25 Rs. 3050.25 Less : 25% for 2 side open plot = Rs. 762.58 Rs. 2287.69 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O's report. The ld. CIT (A) on the peculiar fact, is not found to have committed any error in correcting the DVO's report and making necessary modification which is within the scope of his powers. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the ground raised in ITA No. 286/JP/2012 by the revenue. The same stands rejected. 4. In so far as the assessee's argument that an expert opinion was laid before the DVO as well as the Assessing Authority but ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that further deduction due to proximity of flyover was required to be given, it is apparent from the approved valuer's reports who are experts in the matter that the flyover of bridge construction got completed in the year 2002 and the so called highway went away many feet above the ground. The underneath of flyover was left with congestion. The commercial activities were adversely affected so much so that people had either to close the business or to sell their property. The construction of flyover of bridge near the appellant's property was a negative factor and had adversely affected the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. The ld. CIT (A), however, did not make necessary m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
