TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m measuring 2.9 sq. mts. or 35 sq. ft. This property was sold by the assessee under an agreement dated 25th April, 1996 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,35,000. This property had been purchased by the assessee on 10th February, 1992 for a consideration of Rs. 80,000. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 1997-98 wherein he had disclosed the capital gains on sale of the aforesaid property. The same was accepted by the Assessing Officer in proceedings under section 143(3) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer, however, initiated proceedings under the GT Act by issue of a notice under section 16(1) of the GT Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the Assessing Officer, the property had been sold by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Officer : "(a) Land rate as per sales instanced of Model Town, Delhi With reference to auction on 26th April, 1995. @ Rs. 25,334 per sq. mtr. (b) Further added for time gap for period 26-4-1995 to 25-4-1996 @ Rs. 12% Rs. 3,040 per sq. mtr. Total rate : Rs. 28,374 per sq. mtr. Deductions are allowed for adjustment factors @ Rs. 4,540 per sq. mtr. Net land rate Rs. 23,834 per sq. mtr. Thus the cost of land is arrived at as under : Total land area : 16,722 sq. mtr. Land rate per sq. mtr. Rs. 23,834 per sq. mtr. Cost of land : 167.22 @ Rs. 23,834 Rs. 39,85,521 Fair market value of land : Total : Rs. 39,85,521" 3. The assessee vide his letter dated 9th January,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 2000; (c)Valuation report as on 25th April, 1996 issued by independent registered valuer, Shri B.P. Singh is furnished, who has valued the plot at Rs. 2,50,000. 4. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the stand of the assessee and adopted the rates as given by the Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer held that the market value of the property was Rs. 40,43,300 and he treated the difference between this sum and the value at which the assessee sold the property as a deemed gift under section 4(1)(a ) of the Act. Thus, a sum of Rs. 38,08,300 was assessed as taxable gift in the hands of the assessee. 5. On appeal by the assessee, the same contentions as put forth before the Assessing Officer were reiterated before the CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of an approved property in an approved colony. He also brought to our notice that the assessee's property did not have electricity or water amenities and that the property did not have a proper approach road. He highlighted two sale instances in respect of the same Mahendru Enclave for the very same price at which the assessee sold, which were ignored by the revenue authorities. He also brought to our notices that the plea of the assessee was supported by the report of the registered valuer. He also laid emphasis on the fact that even the market rate fixed by the L&DO for the period in question was Rs. 2,650 per sq. mtr. and in any event this important piece of evidence regarding the market value of the property on the date of tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in the manner computed in accordance with Schedule II to GT Act. Besides the above, the claim of the assessee regarding the market value of the property had not been taken into consideration by the GTO. Without rendering a finding on the value of the property as on the date of transfer, the GTO is not entitled to invoke the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act. As already stated in the absence of evidence regarding the inadequacy of consideration, the Assessing Officer was not entitled to invoke the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act. Firstly, the onus is on the revenue to show that the assessee had in fact sold the property at a higher consideration and then determination of deemed gift would have been justified by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with such valuation report. Apart from the above when the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs, had fixed the value of the land in Mahendru Enclave at Rs. 2,650 per sq. mtr. for the period in which the assessee has transferred the property, this piece of evidence was also ignored by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) has also overlooked these objections. He has proceeded on the basis that the rate prescribed by the Ministry of Urban Development was not a true reflection of the market value. This was not permissible in law. The approach of the CIT(A) allowing rebate from the value of the property determined in Model Town by itself indicates that the properties at Model Town and Mahendru Enclave are not comparable. The method of val....