9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame by producing the valuation report from the Registered Valuer. In our opinion, objection expressed by the assessee is to be considered in proper perspective. Whenever the AO places reliance on the valuation report received by the DVO, the same should be communicated to the assessee for her comments and decided thereupon. The assessee before us pointed out that there are certain discrepancies in the valuation report, which is detrimental to the interest of the assessee and it is appropriate to call for the comments and details from the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is appropriate to remit the issue to the file of the AO. Regarding fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981, the AO shall find comparable cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturned nil capital gain. Not satisfied with the above working furnished by the assessee, the AO fixed the cost of land sold at ₹ 30,000/- per ground as on 01.04.1981 based on the guideline value furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Purasawalkam, Chennai. Thus the AO arrived at the capital gain at ₹ 2,62,08,368/- by invoking the provisions of sec.50C of the Act. Assessee's share was worked out at ₹ 87,36,122/-. After setting of ₹ 3,00,000/- invested in NABARD bonds u/s 54EC of the Act, the capital gain of the assessee was fixed at ₹ 57f36,122/- and the same was brought to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 4. During the course of first appellate proceedings, the assessee file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected the AO to refer the property to the Valuation Cell of the Department and then afford an opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the AO in his letter dated 20.04.2011 referred the matter to the DVO, Valuation Cell, Chennai for valuation of the property. The DVO in his report in F. No. DVO/MDS/CG(1)/2011-12 dated 18.11.2011 fixed the fair market value of the property at ₹ 28,45,000/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO gave an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in his letter dated 19.01.2012 posting the case on 23.01.2012. On the appointed date, asessee's authorized representative appeared and said 'no objection' to the valuation report. The assessing officer intimated the CIT(A)-XII, Chennai accordingly vide his letter da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne value/ground at ₹ 30,000/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO in his letter dated 07.11.2008 addressed to the assessee gave opportunity to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed based on the guideline value. As there was no response, further opportunities were also given to the assessee for her reply, if any. The assessee did not respond. Therefore, the AO worked out the capital gain adopting ₹ 30,000j- per ground towards cost of the land sold for indexation purpose. Further, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the AO did not interfere with the market value adopted by the assessee for working out capital gain. Therefore, the statement of facts is not correct in stating that the AO concluded that the provisions of sec.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent and capital gain is brought to tax here in the hands of the seller of the property as per the specific provisions of sec. 50C brought into statute for this purpose alone. Regarding the applicability of sec.50C(2) of the Act, two conditions are to be satisfied: 1. The assessee should claim before the AO that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. 2.The value adopted by the stamp valuation authority is not disputed in any appeal, revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or High Court. 4.3 The CIT (Appeals) observed that in the present case, the assessee herself adopted the value assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not tenable. The assessee's valuation @ ₹ 3,00,000/- per ground has no basis either in the form of comparative sale made at that time or value assessable for stamp duty purpose. But the assessing officer obtained the guideline value as on 01.04.1981 from the registration department in order to be fair. There is no arbitrariness in adopting the value of ₹ 30,000/- per ground by the AO for arriving at indexed cost of acquisition as per explanation (iii) to proviso to sec.48 of the Act. Accordingly, he held that no disturbance is required in the cost of asset sold adopted by the AO. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the AO a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
