9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef are that assessee has sold a vacant land on 22/11/2007 for a consideration of Rs. 25.00 lakhs. The value of the property as per SRO is Rs. 43,80,750/-. The Assessing Officer has asked the assessee as to why SRO value of Rs. 43,80,750/- should not be applied as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). In reply, assessee filed a letter dated 11/08/2015 requested the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) to ascertain the fair market value of the property. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the DVO, and after calling the objections from the assessee, the DVO estimated the fair market value of the property at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions raised by the assessee have been considered by the DVO and fixed the fair market value. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has raised the objections before the DVO with regard to the property is adjacent to the cemetery, therefore, its value is very much lesser than the other properties. Therefore, this fact has to be considered as negative factor and the DVO considered the same and granted only 10% deduction. He should have been granted 20%. He also pointed out that the deduction in respect of high tension electrical wires passing over the property, the DVO has cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted deduction to the land adjacent to cemetery at 10%, he should have been granted 20%. So far as passing of electrical wires, the DVO granted only 5%, he should have been granted 10%. Insofar as property is away from village, the DVO has granted 5%, he should have been granted 10%. I find that there is a merit in the argument of the assessee in respect of the land adjacent to cemetery, instead of 10%, 15% should have been granted. Insofar as passing of electrical wires, DVO considered 5%, in my opinion, he should have been granted 10%. So far as property is away from village, there is no merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee. In this respect, I find that 5% deduction considered by the DVO is fair and reasonable. The DVO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
