9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue. With this observation, we remit the entire issue to the file of AO for reconsideration in the light of above. - ITA No. 673/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2022 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Venkatesh Kumar, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Sudheendra Kumar S.K., D.R. ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dated 31.1.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the learned CIT(A) was not justified in adopting the fair market value of Rs.2,34,63,205/- under section 50C of the Income tax Act, without considering the objection of the assessee with regard to fair market value of the property sold by the Assessee during the relevant A.Y. 2014-15, based on the report of the DVO as well as against the presumptive value of the capital asset as per Sec. 50C of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to consider the Assesses CBDT approved valuer's report, wherein he adopted the Land Building method of valuation being the most appropriate method of valuation and determined the FMV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.49,62,526/-. Facts of the case are that the assessee has sold property bearing BBMP No.18/2, PID No.60-106-18/2 with super built-up area of 2005 sq. ft. in the third floor, 10th Main Road, 4th Block Jayanagar, Bangalore 560011, dated 13/11/2013 vide document No.5448/2013-14 to 1) Sri Rajesh Kannaan K G, 2) Sri Ashok Dalta and 3) Sri K Prabahar during the F Y 2013-14 relevant to A Y 2014-15 for a consideration of Rs.1,55,00,000/-. At the time of sale and registration of the said property, guidance value of Rs.2,66,50,000/- was adopted and stamp duty 1% that is Rs.2,66,500/- has been paid by the purchaser and accordingly proposal was sent to the assessee on 26.12.2016 to show cause why the difference of guidance value of Rs.27,87,500/ - cannot be brought to tax as short-term capital gain as per Sec.50C of the Act. 2.1 The assessee has filed his reply to the show cause notice with the contention that property has been sold at a value much greater than the guidance value and further the sub-registrar has valued the property completely disregarding the fact that the property is situated not in the main road but in the cross road, just because the place has been named as 10th D Mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the objection of the assessee was rejected with regard to the valuation report. He also placed his reliance on the judgement in the case of Geeta Roy in ITA No.440/Kol/2010 dated 11.3.2011 wherein it was held as under: 9. We find that from the above provision of section 50C of the Act, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f.1.4.2003, by virtue of which a special provision for determining the full value of consideration in cases of transfer of immovable property is introduced. As per this provision, in case the consideration declared to be received or accruing as a result of transfer of land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration and capital gains shall be charged accordingly u/s. 48 of the Act. This position is in view of sub-section 50C(1) of the Act. Subsection (2) provides that where the assessee claims that the value adopted or assessed for stamp duty purposes exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer and he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion though other most appropriate method is available before him like land building method, rent capitalization method, development method, profit method, comparable method, combination of more than one method for partly owner and partly tenanted property. He drew our attention to the registered valuer report done by CBDT approved registered valuer, wherein adopted the land building method of valuation being the most appropriate method of valuation to determine the FMV of the said building after considering all relevant facts. He also relied on the following judgements:- a) The ITAT Agra Bench in Shri Pare Mohan Mathur, HUF, vs. income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Aligarh, has held as follows The circle rate can be substituted u/s. 50C for the purpose of determining the sale consideration for computation of capital gain, but there is no provision which states that the fair market value will be represented by the circle rate. The fair market value is defined u/s. 2(22B). This section nowhere states that the fair market value will be the circle rate as notified for the purpose of registration of the properties under the Stamp Duty Act. This section clearly says that fair mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purchaser in the absence of any admissible evidence. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not produced the registered valuer report before the AO and he has produced the same before Ld. CIT(A) only for which no credence could be given. Further, he submitted that assessee has paid the stamp duty on the value fixed by the sub-registrar and which has not been challenged by him either by the assessee or by the purchaser being FMV determined by the DVO to be considered as fair and to be adopted and there is no error in the order of lower authorities and same to be confirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, assessee has filed the valuation report from the registered valuer before Ld. CIT(A) and the fact has been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order. However, no credence has been given to it. As per the registered valuer report given by A.S. Anil Kumar dated 23.8.2018, the value has been determined by him as Rs.1,25,30,606/- as against the value adopted by the DVO at Rs.2,34,63,205/-. However, the assessee declared the value at Rs.1.55 crores in sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
