9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation was done by M/s M.L.Aggarwal/Arun Aggarwal at higher price. Revenue failed to bring on record any material assailing the correctness of the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this aspect. In so far as the valuation report of M/s M.L.Aggarwal/Arun Aggarwal cannot be a yardstick for the purpose of determination of the proper value is concerned, findings of the learned CIT(A) are legal and do not invite any interference. On this premise, we dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. Now coming to the grievance of assesses that the purpose of submitting copy of sale deed of the adjoining plot at 3, Round No. G-4, DLF-1 at the rate of ₹ 20,460/- per sq. was only to demolish the contention of the AO as to the higher valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders of the ld. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi ( Ld. CIT(A) ), both dated 28.03.2013 in Appeal Nos. 522/10-11 in the case of Shri Abhinav Arora and 530/10-11 in the case of Smt. Ranju Arora, pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09.passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi. 2. Since the transaction which gave rise to the capital gains, which is the subject matter in all the four appeals, is one and the same, we deem it just and proper to dispose of all these appeals by way of common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Abhinav Arora is the son of Smt. Ranju Arora and have purchased a residential ploy No.8, Kachnar Marg, DLF, Gurga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). They have submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the query was raised by the ld. AO at the end of the time barring date and, therefore, they could not produce certain documents before the ld. AO to substantiate their claim that the sale consideration was only ₹ 1.55 crores and nothing more and also that the valuation of ₹ 7,40,95,000/- was made by M/s M.L. Aggarwal only for the purpose of obtaining loan from Axis Bank and it has nothing to do with the sale consideration received. They produced before the ld. CIT(A) the valuation report of the property dated 1.12.2011 showing the same at ₹ 1,55,61,000/- @ ₹ 18,200/- per sq. mt and also the copy of the sale deed of adjoining plot no.3 to show price at ₹ 20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey have made not in acquiring the property in question but for obtaining the bank loan, the valuation of the property was done at a higher rate. Learned CIT(A), therefore, declined to take the valuation done for bank purpose at the yardstick to reach a conclusion that there was any unaccounted investment. On this premise, learned CIT(A) brushed aside the valuation as per P A Valuetech (P) Ltd. and relied upon the valuation document relating to the adjoining property submitted by the assessee to reach a conclusion that the total investment comes to ₹ 1.71 crores @ ₹ 20,000/- per sq. Mt. On this premise, ld. CIT(A) determined the unaccounted investment at ₹ 16 lacs and sustained the addition in the hands of each, mother and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchased by assesses and the property in respect of which the document was seized during the search are totally different properties and, therefore, no analogy could be drawn between them. Lastly, they submitted that the assessee produced the sale deed of the adjoining property only to say that the rate in that area is not as much as presumed by the AO but it is not the case of the assessee that the property purchased by them was not ₹ 18,000/- per sq. Mt. But it was ₹ 20,000/- per sq.mt. For these reasons, the learned AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) rightly rejected the valuation certificate prepared for the bank loan as the yardstick to determine the correct market value of the property but at the same time, he erred in tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demolish the contention of the AO as to the higher valuation but not to establish the valuation of the property purchased by the assesseees at ₹ 20,000/- per sq. Mt. We find some force in this submission made by the assesses because the property purchased by them is altogether different from the property covered by such sale deed which shows the value of the property at plot No.3 at ₹ 20,460/- per sq. Mt. Further, the valuation report of the property dated 1.12.2011 shows the same at ₹ 18,200/- per sq. Mt. Out of these two documents learned CIT(A) had taken the one which shows higher price. There is no reason for the learned CIT(A) to choose that particular document when the other one is also available. Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
