Appeal partly allowed, Tribunal directs redetermination of sale consideration, capital gains based on Registered Valuer valuation.

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the AO to redetermine the sale consideration and compute capital gains based on the valuation by the Registered Valuer. The grounds regarding reopening of assessment, assessment of capital gains, and denial of deduction under section 80IB(10) were dismissed as not pressed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 147.
2. Assessment of capital gains from the alleged transfer of land.
3. Adoption of sale consideration at Rs. 9,33,36,352/-.
4. Denial of deduction under section 80IB(10).
5. Adoption of value determined by District Valuation Officer (DVO) as the cost of acquisition.

Detailed Analysis:

Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment under section 147, and the same is without jurisdiction and bad in law. However, the assessee did not press this ground, leading to its dismissal.

Assessment of Capital Gains from Alleged Transfer of Land:
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in assessing capital gains from the alleged transfer of land in the impugned assessment year and in holding that the transfer of land had occurred in the impugned year. This ground was also not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed.

Adoption of Sale Consideration at Rs. 9,33,36,352/-:
The assessee was the owner of a piece of land and entered into a development agreement with a developer. The Assessing Officer (AO) valued the area to be received by the assessee at Rs. 9,33,36,352/- based on clause 3(g) of the development agreement, which estimated the sale price at Rs. 2,427/- per sq. ft. The assessee contended that the sale consideration should have been based on the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority, which was Rs. 3,45,87,500/-. The Tribunal found that the value of sale consideration determined by the AO based on clause 3(g) was incorrect and unjustified. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to redetermine the consideration upon which capital gain could be computed, considering the value of similar property in an underdeveloped project yet to commence.

Denial of Deduction under Section 80IB(10):
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the benefit of deduction under section 80IB(10). This ground was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed.

Adoption of Value Determined by DVO as Cost of Acquisition:
The assessee produced additional evidence, including a valuation report by a Registered Valuer showing the value of the property as on 1/4/1981 at Rs. 50,08,320/-. The CIT(A) referred the matter to the DVO, who valued the property at Rs. 21,89,000 as on 1/04/1981. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Puja Prints, which held that a reference under section 55A could be made to the DVO only when the value adopted by the assessee was less than the fair market value. The Tribunal concluded that the reference to the DVO was bad in law and decided that the indexed cost should be computed based on the valuation done by the Registered Valuer of the assessee, i.e., Rs. 50,08,320/-.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal restored the issue of determining the sale consideration to the AO and directed that the indexed cost should be computed based on the valuation by the Registered Valuer. The grounds related to the reopening of assessment, assessment of capital gains, and denial of deduction under section 80IB(10) were dismissed as not pressed.

---