9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -owners. Thus, on this ground itself, the action of the lower authorities in making addition in this regard is not sustainable. In addition to the above, it is also noted by us that while finding out comparable rate of neighbouring properties sold at that time, Ld.CIT(A) had inadvertently taken the rate of a property which was not pertaining to the same building, but located in Sidhwa Building, whose stamp duty has been given at ₹ 7,733 per sq.ft. On the other hand, rates of other properties located in the same building, i.e. BMP building are lesser than the sale price shown by the assessee and average rate of those properties were below the rate shown by the assessee. Thus, if correct sale instances were taken into consideration, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. First we shall take appeal of Mrs. Dilnavaz Sam Variava in ITA No.5216/Mum/2013: 2. This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as CIT (A)] dated 27-02-2013 passed against assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 31- 12-2008 for A.Y. 2006-07 on the following grounds: This Appeal is against the Order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai and relates to the Assessment year 2006-2007. 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that an addition was called for under section 50C, while determining Long Term Capital Gains in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why should not the sale consideration be substituted with the value assessed by stamp valuation authority in view of provisions of section 50C of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted its detailed reply dated 18-12-2008 wherein assessee raised various objections for automatic and blind application of provisions of section 50C and also raised various objections pointing out fallacies in valuation of the property. The assessee supported the valuation with the sale instances of the neighboring properties and also submitted that the building was more than 50 years old and therefore assessee was entitled for depreciation of 50%. The assessee also submitted in support of her claim, valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer to make addition of the differential amount equivalent to proportionate share of the assessee. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for ₹ 17,88,500 was reduced to ₹ 10,59,375 by the Ld.CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal against the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). It was stated by both the parties that no appeal has been filed by the department against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing before us, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel at the very outset that in the assessments of all the co-owners, actual sale consideration has been accepted and no addition has been made. In the case of one of the co-owners, order has been passed u/s 143(3) wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, since it was sale of property, which was coowned by 5 persons, as per law 10% discount is to be allowed as the buyer pays lesser amount in the case of co-owned properties. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have gone through the facts of the case. It is noted by us that the assessee had sold the property @ 6,000/- per sq.ft. as per the actual sale consideration shown in the sale deed. As per the AO and the DVO, the stamp duty rate was ₹ 10,221 per sq.ft., and therefore it was adopted as sale consideration. Ld. CIT(A), after making analysis of the sale price of the properties in the vicinity arrived at an average fair market value at ₹ 7,733/- per sq.ft. But she adopted f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... structed prior to 1940, whereas the aforesaid sale instances considered by the Ld. CIT(A) pertain to the building constructed in 1965. Thus, there cannot dispute on the point that appropriate adjustment on account depreciation must be given while determining the fair market values of two properties constructed at two different points of time. Further, none of the authorities has considered the aspect of providing discount with respect to sale price of properties owned by more than one person. It is noted by us that, if we properly consider all the objections raised by the assessee, the actual sale consideration shown by the assessee @ ₹ 6,000 per sq.ft., would not be less than the fair market value in view of the facts brought before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
