9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai Patel in I.T.A.No. 14/SRT/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 as lead case, of which findings as given would be mutatis-mutandis apply to other four appeals of the assessees. 4. Ground No.1 to 3 of appeal states the ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding long-term capital gain of Rs. 41,03,549 as against Loss of LTCG of Rs. 1,36,590 shown and computed by the assessee in respect of three pieces of land sold which were located are R.S.N. 191 , Block No. 149 at Moje Pal of Surat, by accepting DVO report and taking FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 60 per sq. meter ignoring the FMV of the assessee at Rs. 600 per sq. meter as on 01.04.1981 duly supported by the Government Approved Registered Valuer report submitted by the assessee and non-admitting the comments on valuation as made by the Registered Valuer Shri B. H. Patel of the assessee terming it as additional evidence, which were in facts technical opinion of the government qualified Registered Valuer, based as well as comparable sale instances available and after applying there methods. 5. Succinct facts are that the assessee along with joint co-owners have sold three nonagricultural land for total sale considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of DVO report and pointed out many defects. However, the CIT (A) observed that the assessee has submitted fresh Registered Valuer report for Shri B.H. Patel at the appellate stage, which is fresh evidence under Rule 46A of Income-Tax Rules, 1962 for which no reasons are given as to why another report of Registered Valuer is being submitted after completion of assessment. The appellant has relied earlier on report of Shri P.K. Desai and subsequently it has filed fresh evidence under Rule 46A. Therefore, CIT (A) rejected the said report terming the valuation report as fresh evidence. With regard to Registered Valuer report of P. K. Desai, the CIT (A) observed that it was not based on any comparable sale instances. The Registered Valuer has compared the land price with Gold price fixed by the RBI at the time of April 1981, 2002 and May 2013. The valuation was based on totally general observations. Therefore, the valuation done by the DVO, who valued the land at Rs. 2,54,940 as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs. 60 per sq. meter as against the valuation of the assessee claimed @ 600 per sq. meter was correct. According to CIT (A), when market value is determined the main factor is sale instances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has explained that there are three method for valuation as per judgement of Hon`ble Supreme Courts/High Courts, in sale instances are considered by multiplying 11.94 factors. Accordingly, the Registered Valuer has worked out rate of land in question at Rs. 928 per sq. meter as per Method-I, Rs. 1277 per sq. meter as per method-II and Rs. 293 per sq. meter as per method-III. The average of three method has been worked out at Rs. 833 per sq. meter. However, considering the average rate at Rs. 833 per sq. meter; the Registered Valuer has fixed the rate of land at Rs. 600 per sq. meter i.e. below the average of three method as on 01.04.1981 in the case of the assessee. Therefore, it was urged upon us to accept the Registered Valuer report who was approved valuer of the Department. The learned counsel for the assessee also supported his view by placing reliance on the decision 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. 208 to 214], and decision in the case of Kaushik Sureshbhai v. ITO-Wd-7(2) Surat [I.T.A.No. 3374-3380/Ahd / 2009 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as against Rs. 833 being average rate. 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 considered the average of three method and has relied upon sale instances of sale price prevalent in the neighborhood in the near about dates of 01.04.1981 . No other factors to determine the value of assets as on 01.04.1981 while the Registered Valuer has examined the relevant factors, which is important to estimate the market value of the land. Considering these factors, we are of the considered opinion that the valuation report of B.H. Patel in the case of the assessee is quite reasonable and therefore, the issue is decide in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO is directed to apply rate of Rs. 600 per sq. meter for calculation if long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 of appeal are allowed. 10. Ground No. 4 relates to non-admission of claim of deduction under section 54B on the ground that it was not made during the course of assessment proceedings. 11. The assessee has shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
