9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Capital Gains. In the original assessment proceedings, the AO had adopted the FMV at ₹ 67,500/-. However, in the impugned set aside proceedings, the AO adopted the rate of ₹ 44,000/- determined by the DVO. However, a perusal of the report given by the DVO would show that the said report is very much bald without giving any basis or authority. In this case, the assessing officer has simply adopted the value determined by the DVO. We have already noticed that the report given by the DVO is liable to be rejected. On the contrary, we have seen that the Guide line value as on 1.4.1981 fixed by the State Government for the impugned plot was ₹ 10,89,000/-. The other factors such as available infrastructure, access to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it relates to the assessment year 2001-02. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the amount of the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 determined by the AO for the purpose of computing the Capital gains. 3. The facts relating to the issue cited above are stated in brief. The assessee was allotted a piece of land admeasuring 0.50 acres in an Industrial Estate located in Chennai by Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd in the year 1979 at a cost of ₹ 27,500/-. The assessee obtained assignment of land by paying 50% of the cost on 23.02.1979. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold the above said industrial land for a sum of ₹ 1.55 crores. While computing the Capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fair market value without duly considering the various materials placed before him and also without considering the submissions made before him. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had obtained a valuation certificate from a registered valuer, who had determined the fair market value of the impugned property as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 21,60,000/-. He submitted that the Registered Valuer has considered the nature of the land, its advantages, the Guide line Value fixed by the State Government for collecting Stamp duty etc. and accordingly determined the fair market value. He further submitted that the DVO, on the contrary, did not furnish any basis for determining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 at ₹ 44,000/-. He submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FMV ) as its cost for the purpose of computing Capital Gains. In the original assessment proceedings, the AO had adopted the FMV at ₹ 67,500/-. However, in the impugned set aside proceedings, the AO adopted the rate of ₹ 44,000/- determined by the DVO. However, a perusal of the report given by the DVO would show that the said report is very much bald without giving any basis or authority. For the sake of convenience, we extract below relevant observations made by the DVO in his report:- ..The property was inspected by the then District Valuation Officer on 10.3.2008 15.5.2008 and inspected by me on 3-9-2009 market enquiries were made on various dates. Whereas a Preliminary Order was issued to M/s Ajit India (Madras) P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said value is very much lower than the value adopted by the AO in the original assessment proceedings, that too on the basis of letter given by SIDCO. 8. The plots developed by SIDCO has been allotted to the assessee and it is in the common knowledge that the plots allotted under Government Schemes enjoy higher market value, since the price of such kind of plots are fixed at a lower rate to achieve the Government s objectives. This fact is very much evident when we consider the Guide Line Value fixed by the State Government for the purpose of collecting stamp duty under the Registration Act. The assessee has written a letter dated 01-11-2004 to the concerned Sub Registrar seeking the amount of Guide line value fixed for the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the infrastructure, commercial importance etc. also need to be taken into consideration. The assessee has also claimed to have carried out certain improvements, which will increase the commercial value of the land. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the fair market value fixed by the assessing officer at ₹ 44,000 is very low. We notice that the Registered Valuer has determined almost the double the amount of Guide Line Value, which also appears to be on the higher side. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that after taking into consideration the commercial importance of the property and the infrastructures available, the ends of justice would be met if the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
