9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as on 01.04.1981 for the purpose of computation of capital gains - HELD THAT:- It cannot be said that the value of the property which was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Kurian Joseph [ 2015 (3) TMI 484 - ITAT COCHIN] is identical. As such, in the present case, the CIT(A) cannot determine the fair market value determined on the basis of the Tribunal order in the case of Kurian Joseph. Accordingly, we vacate the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. In our opinion, the fair market value is to be determined by the DVO instead of determining the value by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) without taking the technical expert s opinion. Hence, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to get the valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,4307- per ares, i.e., ₹ 26,894 per cent as compensation. The learned CIT(Appeals) should have considered that the fair market value of the very same property in the year 1981 cannot be more than that of in the year 1992. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the sale of a property in survey No.71472 which was a high way facing property near to the assessee's property and was registered on 25.05.1981 for a value of ₹ 7,128/- per are, ie., ₹ 2885.83 per cent. 3. The facts of the case are the assessee sold the property as on 01.04.1981. In order to ascertain the fair market value of the property, the A.O. requested the office of the sub registrar, Eda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cost of acquisition. In order to reach at a conclusion, the A.O. made enquiries with special Tahasildar (LA) MH No. 111, Vytilla. The Tahasildar informed that in the year 1991-92, the Govt. of Kerala had acquired land adjacent to NH 47 for widening of Highway and a part of assessee's land under consideration was also acquired along with other's property. The A.O. ummed up that the Govt. of Kerala acquired the land in 1991-92 and paid compensation @ 26,894/- per cent. The A.O. made further enquiry with SRO, Edapally and received sales information near to date of 01.04.1981 and held that the highest price for which the land was registered near the date of 01.04.1981 was ₹ 7128/- per are and therefore, the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1981 at ₹ 3000/- per cent, whereas in the instant case the A.O. has estimated the fair market value at ₹ 29927- per cent. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kurian Joseph which held as under: 11. Now, coming to the valuation of the land, the land is admittedly situated few meters away from the bypass road which is part of NH 47. It is also an admitted fact that NH 47 and bypass road was formed even in the 1981. The subject matter of land has proximity to the National Highway. It has potential for future development because of its location. The land was sold for construction of a multi-storeyed building consisting of 80 apartments. By taking into consideration all these factors, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the land was originally acquired by M/s Cochin Roller Flour Mills , a partnership firm between years 1966 to 1974 at a total consideration of ₹ 1,42,000/-. Later on, the firm was converted into a pvt ltd. company and book value of the land on date of conversion from firm to company was ₹ 589130/- because of the improvement done on the land, which has not been taken into consideration by the A.O. for the purpose of allowing indexation. It was submitted that subsequently, the private limited company was amalgamated with the assessee company by an order of the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, in the present case, the CIT(A) cannot determine the fair market value determined on the basis of the Tribunal order in the case of Kurian Joseph. Accordingly, we vacate the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. In our opinion, the fair market value is to be determined by the DVO instead of determining the value by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) without taking the technical expert s opinion. Hence, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to get the valuation report for the impugned property from the DVO and decide the issue afresh. Needless to say that the DVO has to consider the various actual transactions which took place during the relevant period and in the immediate vicinity of the impugned property. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
