TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irecting the AO to adopt the Fair Market value of the property as on 01.04.81 at Rs. 43,10,000/- based on valuation Report of the Registered valuer of Shri Ganjawala. 1.a. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the valuation report of Shri Umrigar Appointed by the co-owners of the property, who adopted the FMV of the property at Rs. 8,08,000/- as on 01.04.1981. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts that the value of the property as on 01.04.81 was adopted by the DVO at Rs. 29,62,000/- as against the value adopted by the Registered valuer of the assessee at Rs. 43,10,000/-. Grounds of Cross Objections: 1. In law & in the facts and in the circumstances of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to determine the fair market value as on 1/4/1981 for the purpose of computing capital gain, the assessee has referred the matter to Registered Valuer , who has valued the share of assessee in the said property at Rs. 43,10,000/- as on 1/4/1981. Accordingly, capital gain was computed at nil after claiming exemption under section 54EC of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the matter was also referred to DVO for determination of the fair market value as on 1/4/1981 for working out long term capital gain, who valued the share of the assessee in the said property at a sum of Rs. 29,62,000/-. The long term capital gain was computed by the AO accordingly. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und No.1(a) has relied upon that valuation which has not even the case of AO in the assessment order. 6. On these facts I have heard both the parties. It was the common contention of both the parties that this issue had come up for consideration in the case of another co-owner namely Shri Jay Harshad Shah (HUF) vs. ITO and vide order dated 12/7/2013 in ITA No.1178/Mum/2012 the matter was restored back to the file of AO with the following observations: 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. Ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty for Rs. 10.80,000 and in the return filed by the assessee; no capital gain was admitted from this transaction. This was explained by a note stating that deducting the cost of the property as the estimated market value as on 1-1-1964 at Rs. 3 lakhs from the sale value of Rs. 10,80,000 the capital gains was Rs. 7,80,000/- and since the assessee had purchased a new house property at Rs. 7 lakhs and incurred stamp duty of Rs. 1 lakh and also made investments in Unit Trust of India for Rs. 25,000 and in National Savings Certificates for Rs. 2,50,000, the capital gain arising from the transaction was not exigible to tax. The ITO did not agree with the assessee, with respect to, inter alia, value of the property as on 31-3-1964. He found that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same. Both the provisions of the Acts require the determination of the value of an asset with reference to the facts relating to the assets such as its location, its features, the market value of other properties in the locality and at works, the expert opinion of valuers. Still any such determination of the market value will remain an opinion of the valuer on hypothetical basis or at best an estimate based on relevant data. Such an opinion is only a piece of evidence when a similar determination is required under another Act. It is always open to the assessee to show that the determination of the market value under the provisions of one Act requires consideration in the light of other evidence available when a fresh determination is requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on 11.1964 for the purpose of computing the capital gains. " 8.2 Following the principles laid down therein, we are of the opinion that the report given for the Wealth tax purposes need not be considered for the Income tax purposes, particularly for computation of capital gains. However, this aspect was not before AO at the time of completing the assessment. Moreover the assessee filed additional evidence in the form of order in the case of Pankaj. P. Shah , accepting assessee valuation in the subsequent order passed after CIT(A) order and also two valuation reports of the department dated 19.04.90 valuing property as on 31.03.87 to 31.03.88. These valuation reports of the department along with the Wealth tax report of Shri Umrigar are t....