9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of computing capital gains ignoring the valuation report of the DVO and the assessment made in assessee s brother s case wherein the valuation of the DVO was adopted for computing long term capital gains. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also did not accept the contention of the assessee for adopting the DVO valuation in assessee s case also for the purpose of computing the long term capital gain which in our view, is not justified. Having adopted the DVO s valuation in one of the co-owners case who is the brother of the assessee for the assessment year i.e. 2011-12 for computing the long term capital gain, we see no justifiable reason to adopt a different valuation in assessee s case for computing long term capital gain for his 1/6th share for the very same assessment year i.e. 2011-12. Even the case of the Revenue that the valuation of the DVO was not accepted by the Revenue in the case of Late Krishan Kant Chahal and the CIT had initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Revenue could not place before us any proceeding pending under section 263 in the case of co-owner and brother of the assessee Late Shri Krishan Kant Chahal. The valuation adopted by the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en accepted by the Department in the assessment proceedings by the ITO Ward 1(4) Dehradun vide Assessment Order dated 29.12.2016. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, as the additional evidence has been taken cognisance of without asking for a remand report either from the Appellant's AO or from the Departmental Valuation Officer, for which he was duty bound, as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962, in the interest of natural justice. 4. Ground No. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts of the DVO's Report dated 16.12.2016, in so far he has disagreed with the DVO's action to reduce the Circle Rate of the land by 50% to arrive at the Fair Market Value of land sold, stating that he has not adopted a scientific basis for reducing the value of land by 50%' in the case of Smt. Krishna Nand Chahal for AY 2011-12 which is common and relevant in the case of the Appellant also, without any reference/opportunity to the DVO or the appellant, even when he was fully aware that the said report has been accepted by the AO of Ward 1(4) Dehradun while framing the assessment order of Smt. Krishna Nand Chahal for A.Y. 2011-12, and has not been challenged before any App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that the assessment in the case of his brother, who was the co-owner of the property was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act by order dated 29.12.2016 accepting the valuation report of the DVO. The ld. Counsel also referred to the valuation report of the Departmental Valuer which is placed at page Nos. 8 to 15 wherein the DVO valued the property at Rs. 3,39,57,000/-. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. Heard rival submissions. We find considerable merit in the submissions of the ld. Counsel. On perusal of the assessment order in the case of Smt. Krishna Nand Chahal, wife and legal heir of Late Shri Krishan Kant Chahal passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 the Assessing Officer adopted the valuation report of Govt. valuer dated 16.12.2016 wherein the property was valued at Rs. 3,39,57,000/- for the purpose of computing long term capital gains on sale of land. The Assessing Officer adopted 1/6th share of the assessee, namely Late Krishan Kant Chahal and computed the long term capital gain accordingly observing as under:- Original return was filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment made in assessee s brother s case wherein the valuation of the DVO was adopted for computing long term capital gains. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also did not accept the contention of the assessee for adopting the DVO valuation in assessee s case also for the purpose of computing the long term capital gain which in our view, is not justified. Having adopted the DVO s valuation in one of the co-owners case who is the brother of the assessee for the assessment year i.e. 2011-12 for computing the long term capital gain, we see no justifiable reason to adopt a different valuation in assessee s case for computing long term capital gain for his 1/6th share for the very same assessment year i.e. 2011-12. 9. Our view is supported by the decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai Vs. CWT [(1977) 107 ITR 477 (P H) wherein the Hon ble High Court held as under:- 11. It is no doubt true that assessment for a particular year is final and conclusive between the parties only and the decision given in an assessment for an earlier year is not binding either on the assessee or on the department in a subsequent year, but this is not an absolute rule. In C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee can also be heard. So long as this order is not challenged in appeal or revision, it is not open to the department to adopt a different yardstick in the case of the present assessee. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, we answer the questions referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. Following the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai Vs. CWT (supra) the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kumararani Smt. Meenakshi Achi [(2007) 292 ITR 624 (Mad)] held as under:- 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue without going into the merits of the case, merely on the basis of the co-owner's case being dropped; and that the registered valuer had taken a sale of ground of land in 1995 and worked backwards, whereas the Assessing Officer had taken the value shown by one of the co-owners in respect of the neighbouring land, and therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer needs to be restored. 7. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer proceeded to adopt the value of the land disclosed by one of the co-owners for wealth tax proceedings for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
