9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty and assessed to capital gains the same income in their respective hands by the Department? 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in ignoring the documentary evidence of fixing the ceiling as for the family under section 5(1)(ii)(A)(C) of the Urban Ceiling Act, 1978, wherein it was clearly established that property belonged to the family? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the claim of the relief under section 54F of the Act? 5. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the valuation shown by the appellant which is based on the valuation report by an expert, a qualified and approved valuer, when there is no specific reference to the Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer under section 55A of the Income-tax Act for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s merited to be considered in her name to work out the capital gains on that basis. Countering the claim of the assessee that the value of the property was at ₹ 3,65,000 as per the valuation report produced by her, the assessing authority noted that the adjoining lands were acquired by the Housing Board for prices in the range of ₹ 25,000 to 30,000 per ground. Consequently, he rejected the valuation report as baseless. He also noted that even at the time of purchase in 1970 it was intended as market site forming part of a large area developed by the seller as noted in the purchase deed. Consequently, the cost was worked out at ₹ 75,000 per ground as on April 1, 1981, and a sum of ₹ 3,00,000 was deducted towards im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 50,000. On the question of deduction under section 54F of the Act, he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent that there was nothing to show the assessee could be treated as co-owner of the property. Consequently, the interest earned on the bank account in entirety was included. The assessee went on appeal before the Tribunal questioning the correctness of the order treating the assessee as owner of the entire extent of the property as against the claim of undivided share. The assessee also questioned the rejection on the deduction of expenses incurred in connection with the sale of the property, indexed cost of acquisition and also relating to deduction under section 54F to the extent of ₹ 50,000 only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as in T. Nagar and Adyar, had no relevance whatsoever. The Tribunal found that the comparison cases referred to by the Commissioner of Income-tax were nowhere near the property at Mugappair and they are situated in far off places. The Tribunal further noted that these lands situated in Mugappair are close to Anna Nagar. Hence, the sale instances referred to for the purpose of comparison were not at all justified in the circumstances. Referring to the reliance on the valuation report, the Tribunal held that the valuer's report was totally unimaginable. The Tribunal also pointed out that there was no ready material available and the guideline value was also not on record. The Tribunal noted that except for referring to the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on the question of valuation. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the valuer's report. We do not agree with the submissions. The Tribunal, as a final fact finding authority, has rightly affirmed the findings of the authorities below that no documents were furnished by the assessee or any evidence given to substantiate that she was the owner of the undivided 1/5th share alone. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the documents available showed the assessee/appellant herein was the absolute owner right from the day of the purchase to the date of sale. In the circumstances, it being a finding of fact we reject the plea. On the question of additional expenses incurred, in connection with the sale, the Tribunal has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
