9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n property - HELD THAT:- Even if the source is not proved, then no addition of this amount can be made for the assessment year under consideration. Further, the assessee has explained that payment were made by cheque out of sale consideration received against agreement to sale. The payment received from K B Patel has been duly reflected in confirmation account appearing at Paper Book Page No. 7. This facts shows that funds were received as part of advance from Shri K B Patel for sale of said property. These funds were utilized for purchase of ne property. Later on said party has changed his mind and agreement to sale was cancelled. Since, the assessee has purchased another land out of part sale consideration received on sale of impugned land, he returned amount to K B Patel only when he sold impugned land to another person and received payments for the same. AO has wrongly made addition hence, same is therefore, deleted. Claim of deduction u/s 54B - HELD THAT:- Investment is not made out of sale proceeds of impugned land under consideration. Hence, same is rightly denied by the AO. Accordingly, Ground of appeal is dismissed. - I.T.A No.379/SRT2017 - - - Dated:- 11-2-202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in at ₹ 2,42,47,922 on the basis of DVO report by taking rate @64.30 per sq. meter as on 01.04.1981as against ₹ 380 PSM by the assessee which resulted in addition of Rs. ₹ 2,00,29,039 on account of long-term capital gain. 4. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Wherein it was contended that the AO has wrongly referred to DVO without pointing out any defects in the report of Registered Valuer. It was contended that that Registered Valuer was entitled to carry out valuation of agricultural land. He has given valuation report in Form No. 2 giving detailed reasons for applying reverse method for valuation of impugned land. The DVO is not qualified technically person to undertake valuation of agricultural land. Whereas the Registered Valuer has taken various factors such as fertility of land, availability of water, infrastructure facility availability of labour etc. However, CIT (A) observed that the DVO is competent to carry out valuation and valuation has been done by comparable sale instances, hence, same is more authentic. In view of this matter, the CIT (A) has confirmed the findings recorded by the AO. 5. Being, aggrieved t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Valuer has calculated market rate as on 01.04.1981 by taking reverse method by calculating a decrease about 10% per year rate applicable. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of tribunal in the case of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Shri Madhusudan P. Patel v. ITO, Ward-3 Gandhinagar [I.T.A.No. 2579/ Ahd/ 2010 /A.Y. 2007-08 dated 05.04.2013] (copy filed Paper Book Page No. 64 to 79], wherein in para 5.12, the tribunal observed that the learned Registered Valuer has categorically stated in his report that the sale instances are not available for the relevant period and for the near about period very less as compared to market price and , therefore, he has not relied on the same. The method adopted by him is the fair market value of the land as on date reduced by 10% (correction factor 0.909%) for each year worked out reversely till 01.04.1981, which amounts to ₹ 227.6 per sq. meter . In the instant case, the same Shri B H Patel Registered Valuer of the assessee has valued the land price by reverse method and same needs be accepted by the AO. The decision in the case of Kaushik Sureshbhai v. ITO-Wd-7(2) Surat [I.T.A.No.3374-3380/Ahd/2009 dated 09.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Hon`ble Supreme Court and Hon`ble High Court judgements. Second method is to consider increase in agricultural land price per month one percent. Third method is based on reverse method per year reduction of 10% of Jantri rate/Circle rates. The Government Registered Valuer of the assessee has based his valuation report on the reverse method of valuation out of these three method for valuation of land, which in our opinion is correct method to be considered, where only few sale instances of relevant period are available. The DVO has considered at ₹ 380 per sq. meter land price as on 01.04.1981 as against the DVO rate of ₹ 64.30 per sq. meter. Therefore, we are of the view that the Registered Valuer has quite considerate in taking rate at 380 per sq. meter. This view is further supported by the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Shri Madhusudan P. Patel v. ITO Ward-3 Gandhinagar dated 05.04.2013 (supra) wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal held wherein in para 5.12, the tribunal observed that the learned Registered Valuer has categorically stated in his report that the sale instances are not available for the relevant period and for the near about pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards source, the assessee has sold land to Shri K B Patel, who stated after some time that he is not agriculturist. As such, they cannot purchase the agricultural land. Thus, the assessee sold said land to another person and returned the abovereceived amount to old purchaser later on. The contra confirmation was filed. However, the AO observed that there is no evidence to show that the land was sold to K B Patel and later on sold to another person and out of sale proceeds, the purchase of land was made. If the source of payment in 2011 is out of land sold in 2012 , then purchase of land should have been made after receiving the sale proceeds. Therefore, the assessee has been not able to prove source of investment in land hence, the AO made addition of ₹ 73,13,300 as unexplained investment. 11. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Wherein it was contended that immovable property amounting to ₹ 73,13,300 out of funds which were received out of advance received for sale of property to Shri K.B.Patel. However, CIT (A) confirmed the addition so made on the ground that the appellant was not able to furnish copy of agreement to sale and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
