9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forded due and adequate opportunity of hearing. - I.T.A No. 147/Agra/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Manoj Khurana, AR. For The Revenue : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. ORDER This is assessee s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, taking the following concise grounds: 1. As the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts as well as in law while making the addition for ₹ 91,694/- by invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the Act and applied the rate of G.P. @ 17% as against 15.8% disclosed by the Appellant. Though no defects were found in the sales, purchases, opening and closing stock the Ld. A.O rejected the books. (Relief claimed ₹ 91,694/-) 2. That the LD. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition made by the A.O for ₹ 44,285/- by disallowing the proportionate amount of interest out of total interest claimed by the appellant as business expenditure. As the conditions u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Income tax act are satisfied, interest paid on Borrowings for Business purpose are an allowable expenditure. (Relief claimed ₹ 44,285/-) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of property shown by assessee and fixed by Valuation Officer may not be treated as undisclosed sale consideration and accordingly long term capital gain on this sale consideration may be charged. Assessee filed his objections vide letter dated 19/03/2013 on 20/03/2013. After careful consideration of objections, the fair market value determined by valuation officer is accepted and is taken as full value of sale consideration u/s 50C of IT Act. 4. As per section 50C of the IT Act, the matter was referred for valuation to the DVO. The assessee had shown sale consideration at ₹ 49,23,450/-. The Circle rate was ₹ 91,98,000/-. The DVO gave valuation of ₹ 73,18,400/-. The assessee objected to such valuation. He contended that: 8.3.1 Appellant has objected the value adopted as sale consideration under section 50C by the AO based on valuation made by the District valuation Officer. It is contended that valuation made by DVO is not justified. It was contended that DVO has valued the land at higher rate disregarding the facts that:- I. The land is having disputed title and ownership cases are pending in the civil courts; II. That it is located in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the objections, which are part of the valuation report. It is observed in the valuation report that :- Allowing the gross rebate of on account of demerits associated with said land (as old shamshan ghat, dispute in ownership as claimed by assessee, irregular shape of plot and other unforeseen minor demerits if any, have been considered at the rate of 20% i.e. at ₹ 3200/- as against the Circle Rate of ₹ 4000/- given all these adverse conditions, valuation officer has taken 20% lower valuation than the circle rate, which is more than justified. 8.3.4 Apparently, appellant is not appreciating the proper procedure that is followed by DVO in making this valuation. It is a statutory reference that is made by AO to the valuation officer under section 55A, to ascertain capital gains tax liability. It is a technical report, where proper procedure is followed by the valuation officer to provide technical inputs to the AO. It is seen that the valuation officer has followed the proper procedure in making this valuation. A preliminary report was prepared and all the objections of assessee on issues listed out above were considered. Based on the objections of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e valuation officer, who in turn has followed proper procedure to arrive at the value of the land. Thus the adoption of such value by the AO is in line with the statutory law, and the capital gains tax computed by adopting such value is correct. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. Heard. Against the DVO s report, the assessee, inter alia, objected that it was a fact that the Valuation Officer had not made any local inquiry, though the assessee had made a request in this regard to the Valuation Officer, vide letter dated 11.03.2013 and further vide letter dated 08.04.2013, for supplying of names and addresses of the persons from whom the inquiries were made. As per the DVO s report, inquiries regarding prevailing market rate of equivalent type of land situated in that locality on the road and also inside within 30 meters of the road were gathered from many persons, records and details of whom were not maintained; and that it was not practicable and also beyond the scope of the guidelines for valuation. These observations were made by the DVO vide his letter (APB 6-7) dated Nil, appended as Annexure A to the final valuation report (APB 1-9) dated 15. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
