TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Sub-Registrar mentioned that at Survey Nos. 85/2 and 85/5, Thiruvanmiyur village, the value per ground was only 715,000/- as on 01-04-1981. Assessee was put on notice in this regard, whereupon she filed a reply enclosing therewith a report of approved valuer, as per which, the fair market value per ground as on 01-04-1981 was estimated at 71,20,000/-. However, AO was not impressed by this reply. He completed the assessment computing the capital gains taking 715,000/-per ground as the fair market value as on 01-04-981. 3. In her appeal before the CIT(A) argument of the assessee was that the valuation furnished by registered valuer was rejected without any reason. According to the assessee, the guideline value fixed by State Government could not be taken as such, since it covered wider areas and was not location specific. Assessee also argued that the Inspector was never deputed to inspect the subject property but on the other hand, for getting a guideline followed by the Sub-Registry. As per the assessee, the property was in prime residential area and located near Sri Marundeeshwarar Temple, Thiruvanmiyur Bus Terminus at ECR Road. Relying on sec. 2(22B) of the Income-tax Act, 196....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. DR was not able to place before us the report of the Sub-registrar on the basis of which the Sub-registrar had come to a conclusion that the market value of the property was only Rs. 15,000/- per ground as on 01-04-1981. As already noted above the Registered Valuer had considered the specific location of the property while making his valuation. Hon. Jurisdictional High Court has clearly held in Thulasimani Ammal's case (supra) that guideline value had only evidentiary value but it would not by itself be sufficient to establish the market value, as such. Against Rs. 1,20,000/- per ground fixed by the registered valuer, assessee had only taken Rs. 1 lakh per ground in her computation. We are of the opinion that the AO had adopted a figure of Rs. 15,000/- per ground without giving proper justification for rejecting the value mentioned by the assessee, Thus, we find that the CIT(A) has taken a correct decision in directing the AO to adopt the value of the land at Rs. 1 lakh per ground as on 01-04-1981 and for this purpose, reliance placed by him, on the decision of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thulasimani Ammal's case (supra) cannot be faulted. We, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd is not supported by any documentary evidence, whereas, the Sub-Registrar, who is registering various transfer documents with regard to land in that area has a valid basis for quoting particular price as on 01.04.1981 and the Id. CIT(A) has just accepted the plea of the assessee. Therefore, it was pleaded for reversal of the order of the Id. CIT(A) and resting that of the Assessing Officer. 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, while relying upon the order of the ld. CIT(A), and taking support from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thulasimani Ammal (supra) and the coordinate bench decision in the case of Mrs. N. Meenakshi (supra), in which it has been held that guideline value could not be conclusive proof and fair market value can be different from the value adopted by the Registration authority, it was pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order, as the ld. CIT(A) has adopted midway path because the Registered valuer has given the fair market value at Rs. 1,20,000-per ground as on 01.04.1981, whereas the first appellate authority has adopted Rs. 1.00,000/-as on 01.04.1981. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TO was made as early as 8th Aug. 1979, instead of remitting the matter to the CIT, the market value shown by the petitioner, which is based on the valuer's report, viz., a sum of Rs. 83,330 can be taken as the market value of the property so that further proceedings on the determination of the market value can be avoided. Further, the value shown by the petitioner is based on the report of the approved valuer and there are no justifiable reasons to discard the same....." 15. From the above observation of the Hon'ble High Court, it would be seen that approved valuer's report has been accepted for the reasons of being old one, otherwise, it has clearly been mentioned that matter had to be remitted back and in the case in hand, the assessee did not base the value as on 01.04.1981 on any approved valuer's report and when enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer and guideline value was obtained from the Sub-Registrar concerned, which was confronted to the assessee, he came forward with a valuer's report showing value at Rs. 1,20,000/- per ground as on 01.04.1981, which has neither been adopted by the assessee nor by the Id. CIT(A) to reverse the order of the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessee's father, Shri T. Devendran, thereafter settled the property between himself and children whereby the assessee acquired 1/9th right in the property of 33 grounds at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. 3. The above sale transaction resulted in generating long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The assessee has returned a total income of Rs. 2,63,050/- by way of long term capital gains. 4. As the property was acquired by the previous owner before 1st April, 1981, the assessee availed the option of adopting the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981 as the cost of acquisition as provided under sec. 55(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee adopted Rs. 1,00,000/- per ground as the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981. The long term capital gains liable for taxation was computed by the assessee in this manner. 5. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing authority deputed the Income-tax Inspector to collect relevant information regarding the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981. The Inspector visited the concerned Sub-registrar Office at Saidapet, Chen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Accountant Member who authored the order, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Thulasimani Ammal (supra) held that the guideline value collected from the Sub-registrar Office could not reflect the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981 and therefore, the assessing authority was not justified in adopting Rs. 15,000/- per ground as the fair market value as on 1.4.1981. The learned Accountant Member held that the valuation report framed by the Registered Valuer had estimated the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 after considering the specific location of the property and other relevant factors. The approved valuer has worked out the fair market value at Rs. 1,20,000/- per ground whereas the assessee has claimed only Rs. 1,00,000/- per ground as the fair market value. The learned Accountant Member accordingly upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and confirmed the adoption of Rs. 1,00,000/- per ground as the fair market value as on 1.4.1981. 9. The learned Judicial Member who differed from the order of the learned Accountant Member held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income-tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y is called for to arrive at a reasonable amount of fair market value as on 1.4.1981. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judicial Member, the Assessing Officer did not turn left or right; he simply adopted the guideline value at Rs. 15,000/- per ground with a mechanical arm. The assessing authority should have made further enquiries like the market value adopted for similar properties in the same locality, other comparable sale instances etc. While deputing the Inspector to the Office of the Sub-registrar, the Assessing Officer could have directed the Inspector to visit the concerned site of the property also. The Assessing Officer could have availed the assistance of the Departmental Valuer. Therefore, it is very clear that the Assessing Officer has not done any enquiries except mechanically adopting the guideline value furnished by the Sub-registrar Office. This is an arbitrary approach in fixing the fair market value. 16. Likewise, the assessee also has not stated the basis of fixing the fair market value at Rs. 1,00,000/- per ground as on 1.4.1981. The valuation report was filed by the assessee along with the objections to the proposal mooted by the assessing authority....