AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds of appeals urged by the both the assessees give rise to a solitary issue, namely, whether the "value of land" determined by the Ld. CIT(A) as on the valuation date of the respective assessment years is justifiable in law. 3. The facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. Both the assessee herein jointly owned 54 cents and 47 sq. links of land in survey no. 205/2 in Anchamada village, Kowdiar, Trivandrum. These assessees became owners of the above said property in the financial year 1992-93 upon receiving the same by way of gift from their uncle. They sold the above said property to a builder M/s. Nikunjam Constructions Pvt. Ltd. on 28.05.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of 15% in place of 2% adopted by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, determined the value for other years. The value of land determined by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) in the years under consideration are tabulated below: Asst. year Net value as per Net value as per appeal assessment order order of the Ld. CIT(A) 2005-06 Rs. 78,65,540/- Rs. 78,65,540/- 2004-05 Rs. 77,08,229/- Rs. 66,85,709/- 2003-04 Rs. 75,54,064/- Rs. 56,82,852/- 2002-03 Rs. 74,02,983/- Rs. 48,30,604/- Still aggrieved by the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) , both the assesses have filed these appeals. 6. According to the assessee, the land inherited by them on partition was a portion of the total area o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue determined for the assessment year 2005- 06 on the basis of sale value of the land, which was sold on 28-05-2005, was justified. 8. This Tribunal had an occasion to consider the issue of determination of market value of land for wealth tax purposes in the case of Shri C.P. Mathen, Kochi vs. WTO, Wd.3(3), Ernakulam in W.T.A. Nos. 01 to 04/Coch/2012 relating to the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07. In that case also, the tax authorities determined the value for the assessment year 2006-07 on some basis and for other years, the value was determined by giving gradual reduction of 15% every year. The said methodology did not find favour with the Tribunal. In its order dated 16-11-2012, the Tribunal has discussed about the guidelines to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reconsidered after taking into account all the contributing factors, such as the locality, area of the land, infrastructure facilities available in the vicinity, access to the pubic road, potential for future development, distance between the infrastructure facility and the land in question, guideline value fixed by the State Registration Department, comparable sale instances in the locality and thereafter estimate the market value. Since the lower authorities have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall reconsider the matter after taking into consideration al the aspects discus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Kripal Singh Vs. WTO (10 TTJ (Amr) 395) (b) CWT Vs. Umesh Chand (171 ITR 673) In the case of Umesh Chand (supra), it was held that the compensation claimed in the land acquisition proceedings should not be considered for determining the value of "agricultural land", as the compensation was claimed on its potential value as "building site". The facts prevailing in the instant case is different, i.e., the assessees herein have sold the land subsequently and hence it is not a case of compulsory acquisition. Hence, in our view, the said case law is not applicable to the facts of instant case. However, the copy of judgement in the case of Kirpal Singh (supra) was not furnished to us. In any case, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that the said ....