9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luation Officer. We are of the firm view that the allowance granted by the Valuation Officer is too low considering the drawbacks of the land sold by the assessee. The assessee has realised reasonable amount as sale consideration from his litigated property being 73% of the value determined by the Valuation Officer and therefore there is no necessity to disturb the sale value as the same could be treated as the market value of the property considering the drawbacks of the property. We hereby direct the AO to delete the addition made in the hands of the assessee while computing his long-term capital gains. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 1506/Hyd/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2019 - SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, it was observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee had sold his immovable property mentioned supra for sale consideration of ₹ 72 lakhs however, the market value stated in the sale deed was ₹ 1,04,60,000/. Since there was a difference in the sale consideration and the market value, the ld. AO queried as to why the provisions of section 50C should not be invoked. In response the assessee had made the following submissions before the AO:- Now your good selves have proposed to adopt the sales consideration at ₹ 1,04,60,000/- for the purpose of calculation of capital gains by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. In this regard, I would like to submit that the value of property in question is ₹ 72,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the land. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now on appeal before us. 7. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that the said property was under litigation and occupied by various unauthorised persons for quite number of years. It was further submitted that the assessee had filed a case in the court of law however he did not succeed. The ld. AR also submitted the Court order dated 14/11/2005 and 09/4/2014 in the paper book page No. 55 to 92. The Ld. AR thereafter argued by stating that, when the land was under litigation the amount of ₹ 72 lakhs received by him was more than a fair sale consideration and therefore in these circumstances the valuation report of the Valuation Officer does not have merits. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Stamp Valuation Officer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the firm view that the allowance granted by the Valuation Officer is too low considering the drawbacks of the land sold by the assessee. We are further of the firm view that the assessee has realised reasonable amount as sale consideration from his litigated property being 73% of the value determined by the Ld. Valuation Officer and therefore there is no necessity to disturb the sale value of ₹ 72 lakhs as the same could be treated as the market value of the property considering the drawbacks of the property. Hence, we hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition of ₹ 26,80,000/- made in the hands of the assessee while computing his long-te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
