9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are heard together and being disposed. In the return filed by the above assessees', they have claimed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs. 231.50 per/sq.ft. for the land and building and computed the capital gains. While making the assessments, the Assessing Officer, inter alia, adopted the cost of acquisition of land at Rs. 11.46 p/sq.ft. based on the sub-registrar's guideline value and re-worked the indexed cost of acquisition. Further, in respect of cost of the building, the Assessing Officer referred the property to the Valuation Officer and adopted the value determined by the Assistant Valuation Officer and re-worked the indexed cost of acquisition and then determined the long term capital gain in the respective assessee's ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of his inspection. Therefore, his report should notbe relied on as the impugned building was not in existenceatthe date of his inspection and hence his report can not be a scientific one. Inviting our attention to the valuation report wherein a mention is made that the building was constructed in the year 1919 and the total area of the building was 200 sq.mts., half of the building was Madras Terrace Roof Construction and half RCC Construction etc and since the impugned property was fetching a rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month as per the rental agreement dated 06.03.1985, with a rent advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- etc, the Ld AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances, the value of thebuilding should be worked out as per part B of Schedule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty was given on rent for Rs. 4,000/- per month with a rental advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore, it is proper to adopt the value on rent capitalisation method as per the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act. However, the AO did not agree with assessees' plea and proceeded to compute the capital gains based on the value shown by the stamp authorities and the valuation officer. Before us, the assessee pleads that the guideline value does not reflect the market value and by the time the valuation officer went for inspection, the property was already demolished and hence the valuation made by him cannot be considered as a scientific one. On these facts and circumstances of the case, wefind merit in the submissions of the assessee. The exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
