9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 3. The assessee in this case is aggrieved on account of computation of capital gain by the AO in respect of two properties sold. 4. As regards the first property it was noticed by the AO that it was a land and the market value of the land which was sold on 10-11-2006 as per the Stamp Valuation authority was Rs. 95,25,600/- whereas the sale consideration shown by the assessee was Rs. 51 lakhs. The issue was sent to the Valuation Officer. The AO proceeded to finalize the assessment on the basis of valuation by Stamp Valuation authority as the DVO's report was not received upto the time of finalization of assessment. Subsequently the DVO's valuation report was received on 25-03-2010 and according to which the valuation of the property was Rs. 1,17,60,000/-. However, the assessee contended that the valuation should be much lower. In this regard it was the contention of the assessee that there was no appropriate approach road. Further there were some encroachments also. The assessee also submitted a report of a registered valuer which valued the property at Rs. 47,62,800/-. However, the contention of the assessee was rejected by the learned CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is dated 10-11.-2010 and it is obvious that the fact whether the said property was accessible or not in 2006 would be very difficult for the Valuer to ascertain. He has therefore relied on the evidences given by the appellant which include certain photographs which are claimed to have been taken in about 2006. Any report based on such evidence cannot be taken to be reliable. 6.4 The valuation report also states that the said property was sold by the appellant to Shri K. B. Bandal who then sold to a third party (M/s. Voss Exotech Automatic Pvt. Ltd.) who purchased the industrial plot in the adjoining property (gat no. 285) which given access road to gat. No. 350. The appellant sold the property to Shri Bandal for a consideration of Rs. 51 lacs on 10-11-2006 while Shri Sandal sold the said property to the third party M/s Voss Exotech Automatic Pvt. for a consideration of Rs. 1,42,65,000/- on 15-12-2006. Thus it is evident that in a very short period the valuation of the property has increased from the small amount of Rs. 51 lacs to Rs. 1,42,65,000/-. The fact that M/s Voss Exotech Automatic Pvt. Ltd. purchased an adjoining plot which provided access to gat no. 350 is the explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh that the deal was decided in Dec.2005./Vor there is any mention about it in the sale deed Dt. 10/11/2006. Morever the entire sale consideration was paid in Nov.2006.Mearly producing paper cutting of public notice dt.09/03/2006 does not establish that the deal was concluded in 2005. Generaly any prudent buyer will conclude the deal only after ascertaining and satisfying about the clear & free from encumbrance title of the property. Further the sale deed of the property was took place in the year 2006 on Dt: 10/11/2006 and the valuation for the property is required for the same date on which the sale deed registered/ took place. Hence the essessee' s contention in this regard cannot be accepted. Regarding the obstruction of approach road to the property, this factor is duly considered in arriving the land rate. " 6.6 The DVO had adopted "comparable sale instance" method of valuation of property. One of the sale instances is the same property which has been sold by the appellant to Shri Bandal and then sold by Shri Bandal to Mls VOSS Exotech Automatic Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 1,42,65,000/-. Even the other sale instances quoted by the OVO which is described ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely Rs. 1 crore. In these circumstances, the assessee's plea that the value of the land sold on 10-11-2006 should be Rs. 47,62,800/- is not at all acceptable. By any stretch of imagination the same property cannot have enhancement of Rs. 1 crore in a one month period. This is beyond preponderance of probability. Further more I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has passed a reasonable order considering all the facts of the case. The DVO also has valued the property at Rs. 1,17,60,000/-. However, since the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority is Rs. 92,50,000/-, the same value has been adopted by the authorities below. In my considered opinion this is very fair and the assessee should not be aggrieved on this account. Hence I affirm the order of learned CIT(Appeals) and decide the issue in favour of the Revenue qua the first property. 8. Another property has been sold by the assessee for Rs. 2 lakhs. The AO noted that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs. 5,47,518/-. In an explanation in this regard the assessee submitted as under: " The flat was in mutilated condition. For last 20 years the flat had no repairs and maintenance. Without giving heed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
