9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it could file proper reply - on the land/ property there was full-fledged structure which was used for ware housing purposes, value of which had been taken at nil - The matter regarding the valuation of structures requires fresh consideration as even the structure was old it could not be said that the value was nil – thus, the matter remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 9082/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2013 - Shri Rajendra Singh And Sanjay Garg,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Jitendra Yadav For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Mehta ORDER Per Rajendra Singh, AM. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.8.2010 of CIT (A) for the assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken by AO no reference could be made to the DVO u/s 55A of the Income Tax Act. It was also submitted that on merit, the assessee had raised several objections before DVO which had not been considered properly. It was pointed out that DVO had determined the value of only the vacant land and had not included the full fledged structure raised on the land admeasuring about 325.75 Sq. Mtrs which was being regularly used for storing items like pulses, betel nuts, ayurvedic medicines etc. These facts were duly mentioned in the development agreement with M/s Valia Developers and the original purchase agreement dated 8.5.1969 also clearly stated that the property comprised of land and premises along with three bhattis. It was further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us learned AR for the assessee submitted that the objections raised by the assessee before the DVO/AO have not been properly considered. The DVO had made the valuation on the basis of comparative sale instances which were of the year 1997 and 1979 and the details of the properties had not been given to the assessee to point out any differences. The DVO had not even given the registration no. of the property from which the assessee itself could gather details. In the absence of location details and the name of the road it was not possible to offer any remarks as to whether these cases were comparable. The DVO had simply replied that the properties were in the same locality free from an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty as on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of computation of long term capital gain. The assessee had adopted the value of Rs. 2276100/- as per the registered valuer report whereas the AO had adopted the value as per the DVO who had valued the property as on 1.4.1981 at Rs. 5,28,518/-. The DVO had valued the property on the basis of two comparable sale instances. However it appears from perusal of record that the assessee had specifically asked for details of comparable sale instances so as to file reply in the matter. However, full details of property giving the name of the road and registration no etc had not been given. In our view once the DVO/AO is relying on comparable cases the detail of properties is required to be given to the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
