9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us, we find two expert reports about the valuation of the same land, however, on their perusal we find that there is very minor difference of rates in both reports. The DVO has referred three sale instances which are with regards to small pieces of land, but the size of land under dispute is very large comparative to the comparable. If we take the average of comparable No. 1 3, and excluded comparable No. 2 for the reasons of its size, which is otherwise on very low side i.e Rs. 11/- per square meter, the average of remaining two comparable comes to Rs. 27.49/-. The assessee has already adopted the rate at Rs. 25.69/- per square meter, which is reasonable and acceptable to us. Considering the facts that we have accepted the rate @ Rs. 25.69 per square meter, therefore, all the submissions of ld AR on legal or factual issues have become academic. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 199/Srt/2020 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Krutarth Desai, Adv. With Ms. Disha Kharod, CA For the Department : Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr.DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on 04/8/1965. For the purpose of computation of capital gain, the assessee adopted the value of asset (property) as on 01/4/1981 at Rs. 7,35,000/- on the basis of valuation of Government registered valuer. The Government registered valuer suggested the value of land @ Rs. 25.60 per square meter, on the basis of which the assessee worked out the indexation cost at Rs. 77,45,350/-. The asset was sold at Rs. 77,00,786/-, thus, the assessee computed capital gain at Rs. Nill. The Assessing officer made reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) on 20/11/2018. The report of DVO was not received till the time of passing assessment order. The Assessing officer noted that the case was going to be time barred, accordingly, the assessment order was passed subject to modification on receipt of valuation report of DVO, Vadodara. The Assessing officer straightway computed long term capital gain of Rs. 77,00,786/- while passing the assessment order on 26/12/2018. The Assessing officer received valuation report of DVO on 22/1/2019. The DVO valued the asset (property) at Rs. 6,00,600/- i.e @ Rs. 21/- per square meter. On the basis of report of DVO, the Assessing officer rectified the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any investment for making assessment subject to certain conditions. The assessee further contended that where the investment in the form of asset or otherwise mentioned in the books of account and valuation thereof has been disputed then reference under Section 142A can be made. Prior to 01/10/2014, there was requirement to reject the books of account to make reference under Section 142A which has been taken away from 2014 by making amendment in Section 142A which requires that even without rejecting the books of account, reference under Section 142A can be made. Reliance was made on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Westland Buildtech (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 76 taxmann.com 142 (Delhi Trib). On the basis of such assertion, the assessee contended that when there is no cogent material available with the Assessing officer about the requirement of Section 69, reference under Section 142A cannot be made as has been held by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anand Banwarilal Adhukia Vs DCIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 301 (Guj). The assessee stated that after amendment from 01/10/2014, a condition to reject the books of account which was made to nullify the judgement of Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to record any satisfaction about the correctness or completeness of accounts. Hence, the assessing officer need not record any reason for making reference to the valuation officer and his power is extended to any asset, property or investment. And thereby rejected the submissions of the assessee. On the objection of assessee that reference was made under section 142A and the assessing officer took the cognizance of report of DVO under section 55A, the ld CIT(A) held that DVO furnished his report after considering all the factors and used comparable sales instances method to arrive at the value of property as on 01.04.1981, which has been accepted by the assessing officer in computing capital gain. The ld CIT(A) held that reference under section 142A is perfectly as per law. 6. On the ground that section 55A is not applicable, the ld CIT(A) held that the assessee on the one hand agitating that section 55A is not applicable and other hand contended that reference to DVO should have been made under section 55A, thus, the stand of the assessee is contradictory. On the reliance of decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Manjulaben Unadkat (supra) the ld CIT(A) held that in the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand, the ld Sr DR for the revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld Sr DR for the revenue further submits that the ld CIT(A) in para -6 7 of his order has categorically held that the DVO has given his furnished his report under section 55A and has considered all the objections of the assessee. The assessing officer in the assessment order has clearly recorded that he is not satisfied with the estimation of fair market value adopted by the assessee on the basis of report of the registered valuer. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by the lower authorities as well as by ld AR for the assessee during his submissions. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the issue involves in the present appeal is very limited that is, what should be the fair market value of the asset as on 01.04.1981 as the assessee has acquired the said asset on 04.08.1965. We find that neither the assessing officer try to find out the cost of actual purchase nor the assessee voluntarily disclosed such acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
