9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that as per the judgment in the case of Bimla Singh [ 2008 (10) TMI 62 - PATNA HIGH COURT] as held that difference between cost of construction shown by the assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer being less than 15%, same is to be ignored for the purpose of addition. Hence, if it is accepted that the rebate allowed by D.V.O. on account of demerits is less, such rebate should be 25% as against 10% allowed by the D.V.O., there will be no difference between the value declared by the assessee and value as per D.V.O. Since the rebate allowed by D.V.O. is estimated rebate without any basis indicated by D.V.O. in his report, we feel it proper that in the facts of the present case, such rebate should be 25% of DM Circle Rate and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation officer. 3. BECAUSE on a due consideration of submissions made by the "appellant" before the departmental valuation officer [copies of which were placed before "CIT(A)"], the Ld. "CIT(A)" should have directed the Assessing Officer to accept the declared sale consideration of ₹ 48,39,720/- as full value of consideration for computing the long term capital gain. 4. BECAUSE without prejudice to the contention raised in ground no. 1 & 2, looking to the nature of de-merits attached to the impugned property having no parking space and having a grave yard on one side of the property, the rebate for adverse features allowed by the departmental valuation officer @10% is too less and on a proper appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o distinguishable on facts. 9. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice." 3. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that the report of D.V.O. is available on pages 202 to 211 of the paper book and pointed out that the D.V.O. had valued the property at ₹ 57.036 lac as can be seen on page No. 207 of the paper book. He also drawn our attention to page No. 208 of the paper book regarding the working of this value of ₹ 57.063 lac. He pointed out that for the structure of commercial office building, the D.V.O. has applied the rate of ₹ 21,600/- per sq. mtr. and for working out the cost of land, he has applied the rate of ₹ 11,286/- per sq. mtr. He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-tax, Co. Circle IV(3), Chennai vs. MIL Industries Ltd. [2013] 142 ITD 428 (ITAT [Chen]) in support of this contention that the valuation report of D.V.O. is not sacrosanct. 4. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the present case, the value determined by the D.V.O. is ₹ 57.036 lac. We also find that for working out this value, the D.V.O. has considered and accepted two demerits i.e. availability of no parking space and having graveyard on one side of the property and has allowed rebate of 10% as against DM Circle rate. Hence, this is accepted position that two demerits in the property are there and to cover up such demeri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer being less than 15%, same is to be ignored for the purpose of addition. Hence, if it is accepted that the rebate allowed by D.V.O. on account of demerits is less, such rebate should be 25% as against 10% allowed by the D.V.O., there will be no difference between the value declared by the assessee and value as per D.V.O. Since the rebate allowed by D.V.O. is estimated rebate without any basis indicated by D.V.O. in his report, we feel it proper that in the facts of the present case, such rebate should be 25% of DM Circle Rate and as a result, there is no difference between the value as per D.V.O. and value as per the assessee and as a result, no addition survives. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. (Order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
