9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon by the Co-ordinate Bench. AO has failed to obtain the DVO s report which ought to have been done by the authorities below. Surprisingly, the CIT(A) is also failed to perform such statutory duties conferred upon him. Hence, we find the decision made by the AO, confirmed by the CIT(A) is not in coherence adhere to the principle laid down by the different judicial pronouncement and having no other alternative, we quash the impugned order for the reason as discussed above. We find it and proper to remit the issue to the file of the Learned AO to decide the matter afresh upon obtaining a copy from the DVO to ascertain the fair market value of the property in question as on 01.04.1981 and also upon giving a reasonable opportunity of bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee submitted the details along with working of long term capital gain. The same was also supported by the valuation report prepared by the registered valuer whereby and whereunder the value of the property (3 lands) was determined at ₹ 11,63,955/- as on 01.04.1981 by taking the rate of ₹ 65/- per square meter for land which was ultimately disputed by the Learned AO and the assessment proceeding was finalized upon determining the valuation at the rate of ₹ 1.07 sq. mts.; resultantly, long term capital gain was assessed at ₹ 1,03,23,919/-. Since the assessee had shown the long term capital gain of ₹ 28,75,411/- in its return of income, the balance amount of ₹ 74,48,508/- was added to the tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pronouncements including the order passed by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court as relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench. While deciding the issue the Co-ordinate Bench observed as follows: 8. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that there are three aspects to be decided by us. The first aspect is regarding fair market value as on 01.04.1981 of the assessee s land. In 5 I.T.A.No04./Ahd/2012 this regard, the claim of the assessee is that the rates adopted by the registered valuer should be applied and not the rates adopted by the A.O. on the basis of single instance of a land which is situated at far away place. The secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be very low in the case of 1st instance and 3rd instance. For 3rd sales instance, it is also noted by Ld. CIT(A) that the date of sale is August 1982 being more than one year after the date of 01.04.1981. He has ignored these two sales instances adopted by the Registered valuer and by taking average sale price of the remaining two sales instances adopted by the registered valuer and the one sale instance adopted by the 6 I.T.A.No04./Ahd/2012 A.O., he has worked out average market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 156.50 per sq. mtr. Before us, it was submitted that when the assessee has submitted a report of registered valuer, the same cannot be ignored or varied or substituted without obtaining valuation report form DVO. In sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of a Registered Valuer. The A.O. has taken a different valuation without obtaining valuation report from the DVO. The AO has taken value as on 1.4.1981 on other basis. We are of the view that assessee's valuation as on 1.04.1981 is supported by valuation by a technical person ie. report of registered valuer and contrary to that no such material or 7 I.T.A.No 04./Ahd/2012 departmental valuation report is available on record. Merely on the basis of other general enquiries the valuation declared by the registered valuer cannot be substituted. We therefore set aside the orders of Revenue authorities on this issue and direct the AO to adopt the valuation of the flats as on 1.4.1981 as declared by the assessee. Reference is also invited to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Rajendra H Seth (supra), supports the case of the assessee because as per this tribunal decision, the report of registered valuer being a technical person, cannot be substituted without obtaining any DVO s report or any other report of a technical person. In the present case, no such report of any technical person has 8 I.T.A.No04./Ahd/2012 been obtained by the authorities below and, therefore, for this reason also, the action of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Under these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the fair market value of the property in question as on 01.04.1981 as declared by the assessee on the basis of a report of the registered valuer, cannot be disturbed and the same has to be accepted. We hold accordingly. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
