TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....net income of Rs.2,20,520/-. The assessment was initially processed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act and thereafter after following due procedure, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer has observed that the assessee has claimed long term capital gains on sale of property at Rayapettah, Chennai and called for the details of copy of purchase and sale deed and proof for investments made in the bonds to claim the exemption of capital gains etc. From the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the property sold was of 0.54 cents situated at Zamin Pallavaram Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District and acquired by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I am of the view that the Assessing Officer is correct in adopting the Fair Market Value as per the records of Sub-Registrar for the following reasons: (a) The valuation as per the Sub-Registrar records is more authentic and reliable because they are based on the sales registrations done in that area, the Fair Market Value is fixed by the Government. Even though this value is not conclusive, it gives fairly acceptable value. (b) From the valuation report page-3, para 2.2, it may be seen that the value was given by the Registered Valuer based on verification, survey, local enquiries and necessary information and explanation received, the value was adopted as on 01.04.1981. In this valuation report, the valuer has not given what are th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no evidence shown by the assessee for a lesser value. 5. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer's valuation adopting the Sub-Registrar records is upheld and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed." 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer without considering the Registered Valuer's report adopted the Sub-Registrar's guideline value to determine the fair market value is bad in law and therefore, the value adopted by the Registered Valuer has to be accepted as the cost of acquisition of the property as on 01.04.1981 of Rs.5,32,000/-. The guideline value adopted by the Assessing Officer was not correct and submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.5,32,000/-. The Assessing Officer has not agreed the value adopted by the assessee and called for report from the Sub-Registrar, Pallavaram and according to the report given by the Sub-Registrar, the Assessing Officer before adopting the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 25,920/-, called for explanation/objection, if any from the assessee. However, the assessee has not objected/explained before the Assessing Officer. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee strongly objected the cost adopted by the Assessing Officer and submitted that without considering the valuation report given by Registered Valuer, adopting guideline value of Sub- Registrar is bad in law. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not accepted t....