9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de any strong argument against the fact cited by the ld. AR. After considering the different valuation report of land, the valuation of independent valuer is accepted and valuation of land is confirmed - Accordingly, we quash the addition made by ld. CIT(A) - The market value of the land is confirmed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Manoj Tiwari, FCA. For the Respondent : Sh. Susanta Saha, Addl. CIT(D/R). ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in brevity ld. CIT(A) ] dated 11.10.2023 passed u/s 250 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tures as Independent Valuation Report has not been considered as the plot is land locked plot with no direct road to plot from outside. It is difficult to sell this property as entrance is through some else's plot in all sides and the impugned addition is without any logical basis and ought to be deleted in entirety; (c) For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned addition amounting to Rs. 5,44,730/- on account of the difference between the Registered Value as per Departmental Valuation Officer and set fourth value sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - NFAC u/s 56(2)(viib) is purely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures because as per Independent Valuation Report ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the valuation on dated 29.10.2018 was ascertained amounted to Rs. 15,50,000/-. But, the ld. CIT(A) had not considered the valuation of independent valuer and had not rejected the same. Only the difference amounted to Rs. 5,44,730/- related to difference of the set fourth value amounted to Rs. 11,72,160/- and the valuation of registered valuer (DVO) amounted to Rs. 17,16,896/- are upheld by the ld. CIT(A). The order of the assessment was partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal against the appeal order. 6. Ld. A/R filed written submissions which are kept in the record. Ld. A/R further, argued and invited our attention to page no. 5 of the appeal order. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. Hence, the addition of Rs. 5,44,730/- is confirmed as against Rs. 24,14,769/-. Thus, the appellant gets relief of Rs. 18,70,039/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 7. Ld. A/R in argument, placed that independent valuer made the valuation of the property amounted to Rs. 15,50,000/- and as the property is land locked property, so the 50% of the valuation should be considered. The ld. A/R prayed to accept the market value of the impugned lands amounted to Rs. 7,75,000/- (50% of Rs. 15,50,000/-). Accordingly, there is no difference between the property valued by the independent valuer and the property valued during the sale. Ld. A/R invited our attention to page no. 23 of the paper book; the details of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DVO perse is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the civil appeal. The Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment. In the case of CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46, (DEL) held as under: - It may be relevant to note that a Division Bench of this court, comprising Dr. Arijit Pasayat and D. K. Jain JJ., as their Lordships then were, reiterated that there must be a fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of the Revenue authorities. 10. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. From assessment to appeal, the property was valued in different stages. During the assessment period the ld. AO considered only the valuation of Registration Authority related to stamp duty payment amounted to Rs. 35,87,929/-. But, during the appeal the ld. CIT(A) considered and accepted the valuation of the DVO which is amounted to Rs. 17,16,896/- and the difference in between the set fourth value and valuation of the DVO amounted to Rs. 5,44,730/- was upheld for addition. The entire amount of Rs. 5,44,730/- was deemed to be the income as per Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In valuation report of DVO the nature of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
