TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Decision Upheld in Property Valuation Case, Dismissing Appeal Based on Flawed Evidence</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Rajiv Mehta</h3> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case concerning the valuation of a property for income tax purposes. The Court found the wife's ... - Issues involved: The valuation of a property for income tax assessment purposes based on conflicting information provided by the assessee and his wife, the findings of the Valuation Cell of the Income-tax Department, and the credibility of corroborative evidence from a property dealer.Valuation of Property:The appellant contested an order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the value of a property in New Delhi. The assessee claimed to have purchased the property for Rs. 20 lakhs, while the Assessing Officer relied on the wife's statement indicating a purchase price of Rs. 70 lakhs. The Valuation Officer valued the property at Rs. 31.44 lakhs, but the Assessing Officer chose to accept the wife's valuation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reduced the value to Rs. 25.15 lakhs. The Tribunal, considering marital discord and criminal proceedings between the assessee and his wife, deemed the wife's valuation unreliable and set aside the previous findings.Corroborative Evidence:The Assessing Officer relied on information from a property dealer's books indicating a sale price of Rs. 70 lakhs, but the Tribunal found discrepancies. The property dealer denied brokering the deal and clarified that the figure in his books did not relate to the property in question. This undermined the credibility of the corroborative evidence presented by the revenue.Valuation Cell's Report:The Valuation Officer's report valued the property at Rs. 31.44 lakhs, but the Tribunal observed procedural lapses. The Valuation Officer did not seek comments from the assessee or allow an opportunity to file objections. Additionally, the revenue failed to provide evidence to discredit the value stated in the registered document. The Tribunal emphasized that a registered document typically indicates the property value unless rebutted by reliable evidence.Judgment:The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the case involved evidence evaluation and did not raise significant legal questions. The Tribunal's assessment was deemed appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
