2014 (1) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner (Appeals) has erred in adopting the fair market value of the property at Rs. 13,79,913, instead of Rs. 12,00,000, shown by the assessee, as valued by the Departmental Valuation Officer and thereby confirming the long term capital gain of Rs. 11,38,020. 3. Facts in brief :- In the present case, the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 21st March 2006, determining the total income of Rs. 15,28,250, as against returned income of Rs. 6,03,286, which also included capital gain on sale of property of Rs. 10,05,783, after adjusting brought forward losses and current year's loss. The assessee has sold his office situated at Narasai Natha Street, Koha Bazar, Mumbai, for a total consideration of Rs. 12,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....son and took the sale value at Rs. 13,79,913 and worked out the long term capital gains at Rs. 11,38,020 instead of Rs. 10,05,783 shown by the assessee. 4. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), besides other objections, the main contentions of the assessee was that the valuation done by the V.O. is very close to the value of sale consideration received by the assessee. Reliance was placed on various decisions, the list of which has been incorporated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) at Pages-2 and 3. It was submitted by the assessee that even though the difference between the fair market value determined by the V.O. at Rs. 13,79,913 and actual sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000, received by the assessee is not more than 15%, howe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the same should be ignored because generally while valuing the property, it is a matter of estimate only and some guess work is done for estimating the property. Thus, a difference of 15% cannot be ruled out and benefit should be given to the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative, strongly relied upon the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that there is no provision under section 50C to ignore the V.O's report when reference has been made under section 50C(2), just because the difference between the value shown by the assessee is less than 15%. There cannot be any yard stick of such percentage. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the relevant findings o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 16A, makes it obligatory to the Assessing Officer to adopt the value as reported by the V.O. Provisions of section 23A gives scope of first appeal and the subject matter which can be appealed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) including that of any order of the V.O. and the powers of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to such valuation. Section 24 deals with the appeal to the appellate Tribunal and section 34AA deals with the appearance of the assessee through registered valuers before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal and section 35 deals with rectification of mistakes. A combined reading of these sections provide that insofar as the Assessing Officer is concerned, he is bound by the valuation adopte....