9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al land – the land as agricultural land as on 01-04-1981 and AO has rightly taken the valuation of the land @ 2.32 per sq. ft on the basis of comparable instances obtained by him. As per the provisions of section 55A of the Act, the AO may refer the matter to DVO in case valuation of any property on the basis of registered valuer has been shown by the assessee less than the market value – the AO was justified in treating the land as agricultural land as on 01-04-1981 while valuing the same for calculating the long term capital gain – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and S. No. 603 13.05.2008 01.04.1981 4625000 752640 4380365 244635 Index of 2008-09:582 (C) The information U/s. 133(6) of the I T Act has been called on 28.12.11 from the Dy. Collector (Stamp Duty Valuation), Ahmedabad, for Jantry Rate per Sq. Mt. (value of the agriculture land per Sq. Mt.) in the F.Y. 1981-82. The Dy. Collector (Stamp Duty Valuation), Ahmedabad has submitted the information U/S. 133(6) of the I T Act on 28.12.2011 and stated that the in the year 1981-82 the Jantry was not applicable in the state government of Gujarat. The Jantry rate was applicable in the state government in the year of 1999. He has also stated that the Jantry Rate will be available at the office of Dy. Collector (Stamp Duty Valuation), Gandhinagar. Accordingly, further information U/s. 133 (6) of the I T Act called from Dy. Collector (Stamp Duty Valuation), Gandhinagar on 23.12.2011. The Inspector of this office was deputed to collect this information and he has collected the information of Jantry rate of the said agriculture land. On verification of chart of Jantry rate of Dy. Collector (Stamp Duty Valuation), Gandhinagar, it is observed that the Jantry rate of said agriculture land p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer (DVO) as contemplated u/s 55A of the Act or also should have accepted the valuation of Regd. Valuer as given by appellant. However on the other side that appellant was under bonafide belief that no capital gain is required to be shown in the return of income since transactions related to agricultural land or proceedings should have been made in the hands of appellant's HUF has no force. It is undisputed from the facts of the case that appellant as well as other co-owner's has not reflected even not indicated this transaction in their corresponding returns of income for A.Y. 09-10 and the transaction has come into light only through Annual Information Return (AIR). Further as discussed in facts and evident that in the sale deed the appellant signed and entered into transaction in the capacity of individual and not in his HUF capacity. Further, no return of income was filed for his HUF indicating this transaction even after the security of this case till date, hence the contention that this transaction should be considered in his HUF capacity has no justification and required to be dismissed. The appellant relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ITO v/s C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this plot at Rs.5000/sq mt. was duly tapered down with the help of ratio of cost inflation index for 1981 and 08-09 so to arrive at the basic price of Rs.800/ sq. mt. This was further increased by 20% considering other factor by him to arrive at price on 1981 at Rs.960/sq. mt. I am satisfied with the procedure and making of govt Registered valuer in this regard. In fact, in the case of other co owner i.e. Shri Hernant Amrutlal Patel for the same transaction on the basis of same valuation, ITO Wd 9(2) Ahmedabad vide para 4 of his order dt. 13/12/11 u/s 143(3) of the Act accepted the long term capital gain of Rs.2,44,635 arrived at through the valuation of same govt. Registered valuer. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v/s Kumarasani Smt. Meenakshi Achi (2007) 158 Taxman 4 held that where during same asstt year, same quantity of wealth in possession of one co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, if would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co sharer with a higher rate of tax." It is therefore respectfully following the ratio of Hon'ble supreme court and the valuation made by govt Regd Valuer for cost of acquisition as on 01/04/81, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain. We find this argument devoid of merit in view of the factual matrix of this case that as on 01-04-1981 land was agricultural land and to apply cost inflation index the same cannot be treated as nonagricultural land as on 01-04-1981 simply because the same was converted into non-agricultural land subsequently in the year 2005 when the same was sold as non-agricultural land. Therefore lower authorities have rightly treated this land as agricultural land as on 01-04-1981 and assessing officer has rightly taken the valuation of the land @ 2.32 per sq. ft on the basis of comparable instances obtained by him from the concerned authorities. The another contention raised by learned counsel of the assessee was that AO should have referred the matter to DVO u/s 55A of the Income Tax Act, in case he was not satisfied with the registered valuer report submitted by the assessee. As per the provisions of section 55A of the Act, the assessing officer may refer the matter to DVO in case valuation of any property on the basis of registered valuer has been shown by the assessee less than the market value. In this case the situation is revere as in this case the assessee has shown value of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
