Capital gains valuation upheld where the Departmental Valuation Officer's comparables were found more reliable than the registered valuer's report.

For computing long-term capital gains on sale of property, the Tribunal accepted the Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate where it was supported by more appropriate comparable instances and a scientific basis of valuation. The assessee's registered valuer had relied on comparables that were found not materially similar to the lands in question, so the lower appellate authority's substitution of that report was upheld. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that appreciation of the valuation material and declined to interfere with the capital gains computation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the valuation adopted for computing long-term capital gains on sale of the properties should be based on the registered valuer's report or the Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate.

Analysis: The assessee challenged the substitution of the registered valuer's rate of Rs.235 per sq. mtr. with the lower rate adopted in the assessment. The appellate authority examined the size of the properties and the comparable instances relied upon by both valuers and found that the registered valuer's comparables were not materially similar to the lands in question, whereas the Departmental Valuation Officer had adopted more appropriate comparable instances and a scientific basis for valuation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the appellate authority's appreciation of the material and no reason to interfere with the valuation adopted for capital gains computation.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted on the basis of the Departmental Valuation Officer's estimate was upheld and the assessee's challenge failed.

---