ITAT rejects DVO valuation under section 142A, accepts assessee's higher land valuation for capital gains computation

The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding capital gains computation. The tribunal rejected the DVO's valuation under section 142A for determining indexed cost of acquisition of land as on 01.04.2001. The assessee's valuer determined cost at Rs. 89,800 per sq. yard while DVO valued at Rs. 72,000 per sq. meter. The tribunal found the assessee's valuation more realistic considering property location differences, larger land area (418.06 vs 337.11 sq. meters), better road width (100 ft. main road vs 45 ft. internal), service lane availability, and closer valuation date. The tribunal also allowed cost of improvement and transfer expenses including brokerage, documentation, litigation, and probate expenses as legitimate acquisition and sale costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Indexed cost of acquisition by amount of Rs. 1,97,79,784/- on the basis of report issued by DVO under section 142A of the Act.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 22,61,728/- on account of cost of improvement.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 27,49,400/- on account of transfer expenses.

Analysis:

1. The assessee contested the disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition based on the report by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 142A. The assessee inherited a property and provided detailed expenses and documentary evidence to support the claimed costs. The total long-term capital gain was recalculated by the assessee, increasing the gross total income.

2. The Assessing Officer (AO) referred the property to the DVO for Fair Market Value determination. The AO relied on the DVO's valuation report, leading to a discrepancy between the valuations by the DVO and the assessee's valuer. The issue centered on the valuation of the capital asset by the two parties.

3. The AO's addition based on the DVO's report was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the AO disregarded the valuation report by the assessee's registered valuer. The Departmental Representative contended that the AO was bound to follow the DVO's report once available.

4. The Tribunal examined the conflicting valuations regarding the cost of land as of a specific date. The valuations were based on different properties, leading to discrepancies in land costs. After a detailed analysis of various factors like land area, road width, and comparable sale dates, the Tribunal concluded that no addition on account of land cost was warranted.

5. Regarding expenses like brokerage, documentation, and legal fees, the Tribunal found that these were common expenses in property transactions. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the genuineness of these expenses, and in the absence of evidence proving them as bogus, no disallowance was justified.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the expenses incurred were legitimate and necessary for property acquisition and sale. The judgment was pronounced in the Open Court on 30.05.2024.

---