2015 (7) TMI 1331 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal favors Registered Valuer in property valuation dispute, stresses importance of expert opinions

The Tribunal overturned the Assessing Officer's decision to reject the Registered Valuer's market valuation and instead adopt a lower value for computing ... Capital gain computation - AO rejecting market valuation as on 01.04.1981 as calculated by the Registered Valuer as against calculated fair market value without taking expert opinion - HELD THAT:- The assessee filed report of Registered Valuer in support of the market value as on 01.04.1981. AO was not having any evidence or material before him to contradict the report of the Registered Valuer. AO, if was not satisfied with the report of the Registered Valuer, could have made a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 55A for the purpose of computing income from capital gains. AO has thus, not acted in accordance with law and without any basis or evidence in his possession, did not accept report of the Registered Valuer. In the absence of any material on record, AO should not have made his own calculation for the purpose of computing the capital gains. The orders of the authorities below, thus, cannot be sustained in law. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and direct AO to accept valuation reported by the assessee as per report of the Registered Valuer as on 01.04.1981 and accept the computation filed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenge to rejection of market valuation as on 01.04.1981 by the Assessing Officer without expert opinion.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant contested the Assessing Officer's decision to reject the market valuation calculated by the Registered Valuer at Rs. 8,35,217/- and instead adopt a fair market value of Rs. 2,32,800/- for the purpose of computing capital gain without seeking expert opinion.2. The Assessing Officer based the valuation on the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per kanal as of 01.04.1981, disregarding the Registered Valuer's valuation methodology. The Registered Valuer had justified the valuation at 3.5 times the rate in the registration deed of 1981.3. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer under section 142A or the District Valuation Officer under section 50C, citing relevant judicial precedents. The appellant highlighted that the valuation was crucial for computing capital gains accurately.4. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that reference to the Valuation Officer under section 142A is not required for computing capital gains based on the property's cost of acquisition as of 01.04.1981. The CIT(Appeals) also rejected the contention that the matter should have been referred to the Valuation Officer under section 50C.5. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their case, including cases like Chandra Narain Chaudhry, Chandani Bhochar, and Raj Kumari Vimla Devi, but the CIT(Appeals) found these judgments inapplicable to the present case due to differing issues involved.6. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities, noting that the Assessing Officer did not have sufficient evidence to reject the Registered Valuer's report. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Assessing Officer doubted the valuation, a reference to the Valuation Officer should have been made under section 55A of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the Assessing Officer to accept the Registered Valuer's valuation for computing capital gains.7. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures and expert opinions in determining property valuations for tax purposes.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the arguments, judicial precedents, and final decision rendered by the Tribunal.