9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. But he chose not to file any objections for the same inspite of several opportunities provided to him by the Learned AO which is elaborated in the assessment order. Moreover, the assessee ought to have carried the matter further to the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court against the order of this tribunal in the first round of appellate proceedings in case if he had any grievance. We find that the assessee was not able to produce any evidence in this regard before us. We find that the determination of fair market value as on the date of sale i/e 25.5.2004 by DVO after giving reduction of 15% towards various encumbrances attached to the property , cannot be faulted with. In these facts and circumstances, it is only just and proper to hold that the reference made by the Learned AO to DVO at the instance of the order of this tribunal cannot be faulted with. Interest u/s 234A and 234B - whether CIT(A) was wrong in not considering the fact that the AO has made provisional attachment u/s.281B of the I.T Act on 17.01.2009 whereas he has charged interest u/s. 234A & 234B upto the date of assessment order which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal? - Held that:- . We find lot of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined by the A.O. at ₹ 91,57,930/-. The indexed cost of acquisition of the. said property was derived at ₹ 1,84,505/ - by the A.O. Therefore, the Long Term capital gain from sale of immovable property was arrived at ₹ 89,73,425/-. The order was a subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the A.O. The assessee preferred appeal before the Hon'ble. I.T.A.T Kol. and the Hon'ble. I.T.A.T. 'A' Bench Kolkata vide order dt. 07/05/2010 has restored the matter to the file of the A.O. for re computing the long term capital gain after referring the matter to the valuation cell for valuing the property as on the date of sale and also as on 1/4/ 1981 Adhering to the direction of the Ld. I.T.A.T , reference was made to the Valuation Cell, I.T. Department, Kolkata and the Valuation Officer III, I.T. Department, Kolkata vide communication F. No. 13/CG/VO-Ill/ITD/KOL/ 10-11/875 dt. 31/03/2011 has provided the following valuation in respect of the immovable property situated at 82/1 Narasingha Dutta Road, Howrah- 711101 :- A. FMV of the .property as on 25/05/2004 ₹ 73,26,350/- B. FMV of the property as on 01/04/198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d commencing from 16-4-1958 till the date of transfer. It is therefore quite clear that as on 1-4-1981 the asset was statutorily considered to be held, by the assessee under section 55(2)(b)(ii) read with section 2(49A) of the Act. In our considered opinion therefore, the cost inflation index appli-cable for financial year1981-82 and not to financial year 1998-99 should have been applied by the Assessing Officer. A similar view was taken by Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sofat (supra). In that case house property was inherited by the assessee from her father which was sold in assessment year 1993- 94. The father of the assessee acquired the property in 1972 and therefore, the assessee opted for fair market value of 1-4-1981 to be the cost of acquisition. The assessee computed the indexed cost of acquisition with reference to the cost of inflation index of 1-4-1981 being 100 per cent. Assessee's father expired on 17-2-1991 and the Assessing Officer allowed the indexation of cost with reference to the cost inflation index of financial year 1990-91 as against inflation index of 100 per cent. The Tribunal, however held that the assessee was entitled to comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t brush aside the fact that the Learned AO had not referred the case to DVO for determination of fair market value as on 1.4.1981 on his own volition. Instead it was done based on the directions of this tribunal in the first round of appellate proceedings. In-fact, it is also seen that the assessee himself had raised this issue as an additional ground before this tribunal with a prayer to refer the case to DVO. While this is so, the assessee cannot have any grievance of the fact of Learned AO referring to DVO for determination of fair market value as on 1.4.1981. If the assessee has got any objections to the value determined by DVO, he is at liberty to file the same. But he chose not to file any objections for the same inspite of several opportunities provided to him by the Learned AO which is elaborated in the assessment order. Moreover, the assessee ought to have carried the matter further to the Hon ble Calcutta High Court against the order of this tribunal in the first round of appellate proceedings in case if he had any grievance. We find that the assessee was not able to produce any evidence in this regard before us. We find that the determination of fair market value as on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
