9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly allowed the appeal of the assessee. HELD THAT:- In the circumstances AO ought to have referred the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer as provided in sub section 2 of section 50C or made the enquiries with the APIIC. In the instant case, the AO has not done the above exercise, instead blindly adopted the value decided by the DVO for the A.Y.2009-10 for the impugned assessment year. The short question whether the value decided by the DVO for the A.Y.2009-10 can be applied for the A.Y.2008-09 or not? is to be answered as No since, the values keep changing and for income tax, each assessment year is independent. AO ought to have referred the valuation of property to the DVO for the A.Y.2008-09 also separately and tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds of appeal are related to the determination of Fair Market Value by the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to sale of land. 3. Brief facts of the case are that for the A.Y.2008-09, the assessee sold a piece of land consisting of 545 sq.yds with ACC shed and admitted the capital gains of ₹ 6,30,820/-. The assessee has taken the sale consideration at ₹ 32,70,000/- as against the value of ₹ 62,73,500/- adopted by the Stamp Duty Authorities (SRO). The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) and directed the assessee as to explain as to why the value of Sub Registrar Office i.e. ₹ 62,73,500/- should not be considered for computing the capital gains, against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CIT(A) and argued that the AO erred in adopting the market value of A.Y.2009-10 for the impugned assessment year and requested to accept the actual sale consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO is not permitted to adopt the value determined by the DVO for the A.Y.2009-10 for the earlier year i.e 2008-09. However, the Ld.CIT(A) taking in to consideration of the facts and circumstances determined the fair market value at ₹ 6,800/- per sq.yd by allowing reduction of 15% for the annual increase in rates and accordingly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Against which the department is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that adopti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed by the AO. As per the value determined by APIIC, the land value was ₹ 6,000/- per sq.yd and no evidence was brought on record by the AO to show that the value determined by the APIIC at ₹ 6000/- per sq.yd is incorrect. It seems, no enquiry was made by the AO with APIIC with regard to restrictions imposed by APIIC for transfer of land. In general, certain restrictions are imposed by APIIC for transfer of land situated in the industrial areas, since, the lands are allotted for industrial purposes and cannot be used for any other purposes. The AO ought to have made necessary enquiries with APIIC to determine the fair market value in place of SRO value for computing the capital gains. In the instant case, the assessee has obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
