9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly grievance is that the CIT(A) ought to have taken FMV of the property as on 1.4.1981 as per the Sub-Registrar s correspondence - HELD THAT:- A co-ordinate bench of the 'tribunal' has already averaged the two values qua the same property in assessment year 2006-07. AO has re-opened the assessment on the basis of his findings in the said assessment year. Revenue fails to point out any di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue s sole substantive ground challenges the CIT(A) s order partly deleting the impugned addition of long term capital gains amounting to ₹ 3,02,41,406/- by directing the Assessing Officer to treat fair market value ( FMV ) of the assessee s land acquired @ ₹ 5,16,200/- per ground as on 1.4.1981 instead of ₹ 10,000/- per ground treated in re-assessment framed on 11.11.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006-07 for computing FMV of the very property. This prompted him to issue section 148 notice dated 29.7.2010. In re-assessment, he rejected the assessee s FMV abovesaid instead adopted @ ₹ 10,000/- per ground and arrived at impugned long term capital gains of ₹ 3,02,41,406/-. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal. The CIT(A) has followed order of the 'tribunal' in I.T.A.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id assessment year. The Revenue fails to point out any distinction on facts. In these circumstances, we hold that the CIT(A) has rightly adopted average of the two valuations in partly accepting the assessee s contentions. The CIT(A) s findings under challenge are affirmed. The Revenue s grounds stand rejected. 7. The Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
