9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 50C - HELD THAT:- As difference between the valuation as per stamp duty and the sale consideration issue by the assessee is less than 10% and in such circumstances no addition can be made. - I.T.A No.169/SRT/2017 (Assessment Year:2013-14) - - - Dated:- 3-2-2020 - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER Assessee by Shri Mehul R. Shah, CA Revenue by Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, AM: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (in short the CIT (A) ) dated 22.08.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, which in turn has arisen from the assessment order passed under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee along with other co-owners have sold land bearing survey no.128/2 at Godadara, Dindoli, Surat for a consideration of ₹ 5.11 crore. The assessee has filed a valuation report dated 06.01.2014 wherein the approved valuer has valued the Fair Market Value(FMV) of the land in question as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 290 per sq.mtr whereas sale instances obtained from Sub Registrar in the same / nearby area were found to be at huge variance. Accordingly, the AO has referred the matter to the DVO who vide his report dated 04.03.2016 has determined the FMV of the entire land as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 17,04,560/- i.e. @160 per sq.mtr instead of declared value by the assessee at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges, legal charges. In view of these to be fair on both sides, the ld.CIT(A) has directed the AO to consider additional cost @ 10% as expense incurred as purchase cost towards such heads. Hence, the effective FMV as on 01.04.1981 works out to ₹ 178 (₹ 162 + 10%) per sq.mtr. Therefore, the AO was directed to rework the index cost of acquisition by taking ₹ 178 per sq.mtr FMV. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. The ld.Counsel referred the page 11 being Annexure-A2 DVO s Report indicating comparable sale instances and contended that the note attached to the report shows that the land under consideration is situated on 160 feet wide main road of Dindoli to NH-6 of front side and 140 feet ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale instances considered by the DVO are not of the same survey no. Further, the DVO has himself stated in his report that impugned land was situated at more appropriate location as compared to sale instances considered by him. The CIT(A) has also pointed out that the value determined by the Registrar Valuer was based on unscientific, ad-hoc method and DVO has determined the rate of reduction 162 per sq.mtr cost incurred on stamp duty, additional stamp duty, registration charges, legal charges. Therefore, considering the entirety of the facts and taking a holistic view, we are inclined to accept the ld.Counsel s argument that the average value as determined by Registrar Valuer of the assessee DVO and has considered by the CIT(A) would be mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Hemaben Deas (supra) for which the ld. Sr. D.R. also agreed. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue is covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Hemaben Desai wherein Tribunal has held as under: 12. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The ld.Counsel submitted that the difference between the valuation as per stamp duty and the sale consideration issue by the assessee is less than 10% and in such circumstances no addition can be made. For this proposition, the ld.Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Bombay ITAT in the case of John Flower (India) Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.7545/Mum/2014 for assessment year 2010-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DVO is hardly 10 per cent. Similarly, we find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Kaaddu jayghosh Appasahebh, the learned counsel for the assessee following the decision of the J K High Court in the case of Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (J K) 232 had held that when the margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental valuer was less than 10 per cent, the difference is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. Since in the instant case such difference is less than 10 per cent and considering the fact that valuation is always a matter of estimation where some degree of difference is bound to occur, we are of the considered opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
