TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Ganjawala which was for the purpose of determining the fair market value (FMV) as on 01-04-1981 which was under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of computing the capital gains made on the sale of the impugned property." 2. During the course of appellate proceedings the assessee filed paperbook-2 containing 58 to 71 pages in the form of additional evidence with a prayer to admit the same for adjudicating the issue. It was further submitted that these documents filed by way of additional evidence are nothing but assessment order passed for assessment year 2005-06 in another case of Shri Pankaj P. Shah on 21.01.2013 i.e. after passing the assessment order and order of CIT(A) for the present case. The other documents placed as additional evidence was valuation report of the department dated 19.04.1090 determining the FMV of the Sion property as at 31.03.87 and 31.03.88 determining the values at Rs.54.82 lacs on 31.3.1988 at Rs.69.93 lacs. These are filed in support of the argument of the assessee. The same are admitted for considering the issue as they are legal in nature and go to the root of the matter. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee (HUF) is co-owner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e also was accepted by the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Manjula J. Shah dated 11.10.11. Since the property was received on partition and erstwhile HUF held the property as on 01.04.81, the direction of the CIT was to take the value as on 01.04.81. However, the issue presently contested by the assessee is with reference to the value to be adopted as on 01.04.81. The assessee filed report of M/s. H. Ganjawala who valued the property at Rs.43,10,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) while examining the issue called for the records of assessee at the time of partition and noticed that there was a report of one Shri P.A. Umrigar, prepared after inspecting the property on 07.05.81 which was closest date to 01.04.81. The CIT(A) was of the opinion that this report was more reliable that the report of Shri Ganjawala, who inspected the property on 4.11.2004. He analysed the reports, objections of the assessee and vide para-11 directed AO to adopt the value of Rs.8,98,000/- as against Rs.43,10,000/- estimated by the registered valuer M/s. Ganjawala, resulting in enhancement of the capital gains. 4. The assessee is aggrieved and raised two grounds one o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aking the average value it was submitted that value as on 01.04.81 comes to Rs.42.89 lacs which is almost equivalent to valuation adopted by M/s. H. Ganjawala & Co. It was the submission that the AO may be directed to adopt the value as adopted by the assessee as the AO has no powers to refer the valuation to valuation officer as held by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mrs. Asha Bharat Shah vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.1716/Mum/10 dated 15.12.2011, following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Mehta of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 7. The ld. DR however submitted that valuation adopted by CIT on the basis of Umrigar report given by Mr. Umrigar was correct as it valued property as on 01.04.81 in May, 1981 which was the closest date and can be relied upon. 8. We have considered the issue. There is no dispute with reference to adopting value as on 01.04.81 for the purpose of cost of acquisition and subsequent indexation. The issue is only with reference to value to be adopted. The assessee along with other co-owners adopted the value of M/s. Ganjawala at Rs.43.10 lacs which was also accepted in other cases as the AO has no power to refer to the valuation off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said view. On second appeal, the revenue contended that the assessee was precluded from going back on the value returned and accepted for wealth-tax purposes in respect of the determination of the value of the same property for the purposes of capital gains. HELD: The revenue's contention implied that there was an admission regarding the value of the property leading to an estoppel. An admission is a statement which suggest any inference as to fact in issue by a person having an interest in the subject matter. But such a statement does not amount to an admission when it consists merely of an opinion or belief. Even assuming that the statement made by the assessee in the wealth-tax return that the value of the property was Rs.1,30,000 amounted to an admission, it did not estop him from contending otherwise in the income-tax proceedings. Though section 55 of the Income tax Act uses the phrase 'fair market value of the asset as on 1..1.1964', and section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act uses the phrase 'value of any asset, other than cash, for the purpose of this Act, it shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion o the WTO it would fetch if ....