9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce can only be made if the stamp duty value is higher than the agreement value. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we confirm the same. In our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. cannot be upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 5133/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2016 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Shri Ramachandran For the Respondent : Shri K. Gopal ORDER Per Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the Revenue, being ITA No. 5133/Mum/2014, is directed against the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Mumbai (hereinafter called the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,00,000/- While computing the capital gain, the assessee has shown the value4 of the land and structures as under:- Value of land ₹ 38 crores Value of structures ₹ 2 crores The assessee has declared long term capital gain on the land and short term capital gain on the structures. The A.O. made reference to the DVO for determination of the fair market value of the property in accordance with the provisions of section 55A of the Act. The DVO submitted the fair market value at ₹ 40,60,99,000/- for which the break up as under:- Value of land ₹ 38,08,30,000/- Value of structures ₹ 2,52,69,000/- The assessee was show caused as to why adverse inference regarding the computation of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x applies and the A.O. can complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of the Valuation Officer. Hence, assessment was completed after taking into consideration as assessed by the DVO. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contested the addition made on this issue and submitted that for determination of fair market value of the land and structure the approved valuer was appointed and who valued the same report for ₹ 2,00,90,600/-. The copy of the report was with Income Tax Deptt. The full value of consideration was received for ₹ 40 crores and whereby the value of land ₹ 37,99,09,400 and value of structure ₹ 2,00,90,600/- as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred the section 55A of the Act. The DVO has determined the value of land at ₹ 38,08,30,000/- and value of structure at ₹ 2,52,69,000/-. The assessee has objected to the A.O. in making the additions in the light of section 50C of the Act. The value has considered by the assessee which is much more than the value of ₹ 25,14,76,226/-. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the difference between DVO report and assessee s valuation is of 1.01%. The DVO has valued the structure after demolition and hence the appeal of the was allowed by the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has sold the property which comprises land and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be taken based upon the actual value of sale of property which is higher than the stamp duty value in accordance with the provisions of section 50C of the Act . In this case the full value of the property is comprised of land and building amounting to ₹ 40 crores while the stamp duty value determined at ₹ 25,14,76,226/-. In our considered opinion, the A.O. erred in referring the matter to the DVO u/s 55A as reference can only be made if the stamp duty value is higher than the agreement value. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we confirm the same. In our considered view, the4 addition made by the A.O. cannot be upheld. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0. 5133/Mum/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
