2013 (8) TMI 625 - AT - Income Tax

Property Valuation Dispute Appeal Partially Allowed, Section 14A Disallowance Upheld

M/s Arya Texturisers & Twister C/o. JBF Industries Limited Versus Income tax Officer

The appeal involved disputes over the valuation of a property for capital gains calculation and disallowance under section 14A. The ITAT partially allowed ... Valuation u/s 50C - A.O. rejected valuation done by Govt. valuer - Held that:- valuation is done by the government approved valuer - valuation done by the government approved valuer cannot be brushed aside, as it has been done by a qualified person - Following decisions of ITO vs United Marine Academy [2011 (4) TMI 15 - ITAT MUMBAI], Mrs. Sosamma Paulose vs JCIT [2003 (2) TMI 161 - ITAT COCHIN] and CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri [2012 (12) TMI 421 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Expenditure to earn the exempt incomes - Held that:- assessee was holding on to old investment in shares in which hardly one dividend is received in a year on which no expenditure was incurred - It is quite incomprehensible income claimed to be exempt is huge amount in dividends, and receiving the same in one dividend warrant is improbable - Assessee's grievance not clear - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Valuation of property for calculation of Capital Gain2. Disallowance under section 14AValuation of Property for Calculation of Capital Gain:The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) regarding the valuation of a factory building against the sale consideration of a land and building. The assessee's valuation report by government-approved valuers was not accepted, leading to a dispute. The assessee argued that the valuation report was incorporated in the agreement and accepted by the Sub Registrar. The AO calculated Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) based on the total consideration, rejecting the valuation report. The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. The AR contended that the AO should have referred the issue to the valuation officer if unsatisfied, citing relevant case laws. The ITAT found the CIT(A) did not consider written submissions, leading to a restoration of the issue to the AO for fresh examination in the interest of justice.Disallowance under Section 14A:The assessee received dividends and claimed interest expenses. The AO disallowed a certain amount under section 14A, which was accepted by the CIT(A). The AR argued that holding old investments in shares with minimal dividends did not warrant any expenditure. However, the ITAT found the claim incomprehensible, considering the substantial dividend income claimed. The AO had accepted the computation of disallowance submitted by the assessee. As a result, the ITAT rejected the grounds related to the disallowance under section 14A and upheld the orders of the revenue authorities.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed concerning the valuation issue, which was restored to the AO for fresh examination. However, the disallowance under section 14A was sustained based on the grounds presented and accepted computations. The ITAT pronounced the order on 10th July 2013.