9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 69,64,713/-. At the same time, we are of the view that the value adopted by the valuer at ₹ 2.10 lakhs is also on a lower side - we are of the view that if the value adopted in the present case is restricted to ₹ 20 lakhs, would meet the ends of justice and accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the value of shed at ₹ 20 lakhs and re-work the capital gains. In view of the aforesaid, the amended ground raised by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.2797/PUN/2016 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) - - - Dated:- 14-1-2020 - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by: Shri Satish C. Grover ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Pune, dated 06.09.2016, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- The assessee is an individual stated to be having income from salary, capital gains and other sources. The assessee originally filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under: 3.2 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was in possession of the property situated at CS No.2099, Western Highway, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai consisting of land admeasuring 232.2 sq.mt. and shed / shop with built-up area of 65.03 sq.mt. The appellant purchased the above property vide conveyance deed dated 14.09.1994. The property was later on let out to M/s Millenium Marbles Pvt. Ltd., the purchaser, who was in possession of the property on the date of sale. The land along with shed was transferred to M/s Millenium Marbles Pvt. Ltd vide sate deed date 19.11.2011 for an agreed consideration of ₹ 1,65,00,000. During the period of tenancy of the purchaser, property was acquired by the Govt. of Maharashtra for widening of National Express Highway and the appellant's name in the ownership card was deleted vide entry dated 14.05.2009. However neither any compensation was given to the appellant nor possession of the land was taken over by the Govt. of Maharashtra. Appellant later was allowed to transfer the above property to the tenant M/s Millenium Marbles Pvt. Ltd and sale agreement was executed between the appellant as vendor and tenant being the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt M/s Millenium Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Ultimately the property was transferred by the appellant himself in favour of tenant by way of Sale Deed dated 19.11.2011 and there was no signatory from the Govt. of Maharashtra in the above Sate Deed. Appellant did not receive any compensation from the Govt. and finally was able to execute the Sale Deed in favor of tenant establishes that appellant was never denied of any right in the property and in substance, continued to be the owner of the property. The sale consideration received by the appellant also support that he had not transferred limited rights in the property but transferred ownership rights vested with the appellant. Therefore, in the circumstances, provision of section 50C would apply and ground No.2 raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 3.4 Coming to the dispute regarding valuation of the property adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority of ₹ 2,54,87,000 which was adopted by the AO as sale consideration, the appellant submitted that on reference by the AO, the DVO has determined fair market value at ₹ 1,84,93,000 and same should be substituted in place of value adopted by the AO of ₹ 2,54,87,000. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So far as the value of structure is concerned this office has not left out any factor while determining the same. Hence the assessee's above objection cannot be accepted. Therefore, appellant's submission for rejecting the valuation done by the DVO in respect of the shed being unrealistic is hereby rejected. 3.5 Appellant had lastly contended that difference between the sate consideration recorded of ₹ 1,65,00,000 and the fair market value determined by the DVO of ₹ 1,84,93,000 in terms of percentage was only 11.2 and the AO need not adopt the valuation of the DVO in terms of provision of section 55A(b)(i). I do not find merit in the contention of the appellant as the provision of section 55A(b)(i) only provides that AO may refer the valuation to the DVO if in his opinion fair market value of asset exceeds by more than 15% the value of asset claimed by the assessee. In this case, there was more than 15% difference in the valuation adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority and the value claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the AO had rightly referred the valuation to DVO. This provision cannot be interpreted in the manner claimed by the appellant. Once val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. and the remaining area was an open shed covered by using steel columns and overhead asbestos and it was in existence since F.Y. 1994-95 and did not have any significant value. He submitted that the buyer of the property later on demolished the existing shed and shop and re-constructed afresh a new shop for his own use. He submitted that the estimation of the value of structure by the DVO based on the Ready Reckoner value of 2011 at ₹ 69,64,713/- is excessive as compared to the fair market value of ₹ 2.10 lakhs worked out by the valuation report submitted by the assessee. In support of his contention that in the property card, name of the assessee has been deleted, he pointed to the copy of DVO report which is placed at pages 84 onwards. From that he further pointed out that the said property was already let out to M/s. Millenium Marbles Pvt. Ltd. vide Leave and License Agreement dated 27.02.2007. He also pointed to the fact that the existing shed was demolished by the buyer which is also evident from the DVO report which is placed on record. He also pointed to the remark of the DVO which states that the assessee has only physical possession of the said property and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
