9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain property there are disputes and litigations going on and the property is in the possession of the tenant, the property cannot be valued on the basis of development method by considering that developmental potential and built up area in the nearby locality. ITAT Hyderabad in the case of D. Anitha [ 2015 (4) TMI 723 - ITAT HYDERABAD] held that where property held by the assessee was encumbered and thus the assessee was not the absolute owner of the property, while computing the capital gains arising from transfer of such property, value of property taken for the purpose of payment of stamp duty could not be adopted as sale consideration by applying provisions of section 50C of the Act. Therefore, in the light of the facts of the instant case where apparently the DVO has not considered the on-going dispute as to the title of property at the time of sale of property and in the light of observations made by Hyderabad Tribunal on this aspect, in the interest of justice, the matter is being restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to take appropriate steps for determining the sale consideration as per law taking into consideration the fact that market value of adjacent properties cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of low household withdrawals. 7. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 8. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 4. At the outset, the counsel for the assessee before us submitted that he shall not be pressing for ground nos. 5 and 6 of the appeal. Accordingly, ground no. 5 and 6 of the assessee's appeal are being dismissed as not pressed. 5. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold an immoveable property held jointly with his relative, for a total consideration of Rs. 2 crores. The property was jointly owned by the assessee and his relative. As per the information received from the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad, the value of the property worked out at Rs. 2,99,10,600/- as against the sale consideration of Rs. 2 crores declared in the sale deed by the assessee and his relative. The difference in the value as per sale deed and as per the value determined by the stamp valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee contended that the property under consideration is a disputed property and there is a civil suit going on in respect of the property. The assessee further requested that the issue of valuation of the property should be referred to the valuation officer as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was requested to refer the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) who is the competent authority to decide the correct value of the property under consideration. Thereafter, the DVO completed the valuation of the property and furnished a valuation report dated 19-07-2016 as per which the fair market value of the property was computed at Rs. 2,89,80,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the aforesaid value was also accepted by the Assessing Officer in para 2.2 of the remand report. Accordingly, keeping in view the above facts, the ld. CIT(A) considered the sale consideration of the property at Rs. 2,89,80,000/- and worked out the assessee's share at Rs. 1,44,90,000/- (i.e. 50% share). Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee and as against the addition of Rs. 49,55,300/- made in the hands of the assessee by the Ld. Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid property. However, despite the same, the DVO valued the property on the basis of subsisting market value of properties lying adjacent to the aforesaid property which was sold by the assessee and did not take into consideration the fact that the property could not fetch market value owing to the civil dispute as to the clear title of the aforesaid property. 8. In response, the ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the observations made by the CIT(A) and the ld. Assessing Officer in their respective orders. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that in the instant facts, evidently the DVO did not take into consideration the fact that the title of the property was under dispute and the matter was pending before a civil suit at the time when the assessee and his relative jointly sold the property. Further, we observe that the counsel for the assessee has placed evidence on record before us that the civil suit with respect to the title of properties is still going on even today as on the date of hearing before us. We further observe that the ITA Mumbai in the case of Whiterose Holdings India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 7395/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
