9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to a capital asset means the price that capital asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market on the relevant date. It is also a fact that there is no rule prescribed for the determination of the Fair Market Value. In this regard, under these facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it will be fair and reasonable to adopt the Fair Market Value as has been worked out by the Inspector of the Department. Trinal corectly directed AO to o work out the Fair Market Value as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 25/- per sq. mtr. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A No. 227/PNJ/2013, C.O No. 45/PNJ/2013, I.T.A No. 228/PNJ/2013, C.O No. 46/PNJ/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2015 - Shri P. K. Bansal, AM And Shri D. T. Garasia, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vinay Singh Rawat, ld.DR For the Respondent : Shri V.Y Pawar, Advocate, ld.AR ORDER Per Shri D. T. Garasia, JM: All these appeals and cross objections have been filed by the department and the respective assessee against the separate order of the ld. CIT(A), Panaji dated 24-05-2013 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The above appeals and cross objections pertain to different assessee, therefore, these ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding the property transferred by the Respondent as a capital asset liable for Capital Gains Tax although it is an agricultural land which does not come within the limits prescribed in provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) and 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax 1961. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer, arbitrarily and without any basis held that the transferred land in question is situated within 8 Kms Of Municipal limit of Panaji which is factually incorrect and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating on this matter. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in holding that the transferred land in question is non-agricultural land and that the respondent has not cultivated the said land, without proper appreciation of facts and the evidence produced before him and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating on this matter also. 5. Without prejudice to above grounds, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in determining the fair market value of the transferred property as on 01/04/1981 at ₹ 17/- per square as against ₹ 65.84 per square meter claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the rate at ₹ 11/- per.sq.mtr being average rate and computed the total capital gain at ₹ 2,24,18,817/-. 6. Matter carried to ld. CIT(A) and CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. The department and assessee both are in appeal against the decision of the ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties. During the course of hearing before us the respective assessee has filed cross objection. In cross objection the assessee has taken the additional ground that the assessee has sold the agricultural land property. The assessee has submitted the evidence before us by way of paper book. The assessee has submitted that the said property is situated in the village of Govalim-Moula. The assessee s property is situated at village Govalim and nearest municipality is Panjim Municipality. The distance from CCP boundary via Merces to Batim to Moula village is 14.7 kms. (approx) and CCP boundary to Moula via Merces,Curca is about 11.4 kms. As per Censor Certificate the population of the village is 441 only. Therefore, the population is less than 10,000 the prescribed limits. The distance between the municipality and the village is more t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos.42-43/PNJ/2013 for the A.Y 2007-08 vide order dated 25/10/2013 on identical issue has dismissed the departmental appeals and that of the cross objections are partly allowed. The AO was directed to work the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at ₹ 25/- per.sq.mtr. Therefore, departmental appeals on this issue may be dismissed and ground nos. 5 7 of the cross objections may be allowed. 13. The ld.AR has no objection to the above submission of the ld.DR. 14. Having heard both the parties, we find that the Tribunal in ITA Nos.222/223 CO Nos.42/43/PNJ/2013 dated 25-10-2013 has held as under:- 3.1 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same alongwith the order of the tax authorities below. The ld.AR before us relied on the Valuation Report of the approved Valuer, Kiren Gedam, copy of which is filed before us at pg. 4-10 of the paper book. We noted from the said Valuation Report that the instances does not relate to the village in which the property sold by the Assessee is situated. Even the instances given in the Valuation Report are not relevant to the time. Even the instances relate to smaller plot, area of which is between 300-500 sq. mt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
