TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessing officer has also restricted the value of the house in the land at Rs. 7 lakhs as against claim of the assessee at Rs. 12,54,427. In respect of the other house, according to the ld.representative, the assessing officer estimated the value of the house at Rs. 15 lakhs instead of Rs. 16 lakhs estimated by the assessee. Referring to the valuation report, according to the ld.representyative, the property was valued by an approved valuer Shri R.V. Mohan Thampuran and he estimated the value of the property at Rs. 51,272 per cent. According to the ld.representative, the assessing officer has not found any defect in the valuation made by the assessing officer. The ld.representative further submitted that the assessing officer appears to have placed reliance on the registered document dated 19-01-1980 for the purpose of estimating the fair market value as on 01-04-1981 at Rs. 3,000 per cent. The ld.representative further submitted that the cost of improvement claimed on the old residential house is not considered by both the authorities below. According to the ld.representative, in the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee has invested more than Rs. 10 lakhs and in the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one of the approved methods of valuation as suggested by the approved valuer. 6. The ld.representative submitted that the approved valuer has also inspected 5 cents of land which was taken as a reference by the assessing officer. The approved valuer found that there was no proper access to the property and the access to that five cents of land is only through a paddy filed. The five cents of land compared by the assessing officer is 2 kms away from the subject matter of land in question whereas the subject matter of land is very few metres' away from the bypass road which is part of NH 47. Therefore, the approved valuer, after taking into consideration of the locality, prominence of the place, development of residential colony, etc. has estimated the fair market value. Therefore, according to the ld.representative, the five cents of land compared by the assessing officer cannot be compared with subject matter of the land. The assessee claimed the cost of improvement to the extent of Rs. 29,44,114. The ld.representtive further submitted that the assessee estimated the value of the house at 12,54,327. The building was a nalukettu type of house with teakwood and rood wood. The house....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. 9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee has sold 75.046 cents of land at Palliprom in Trikkakkara panchayat for Rs. 4,57,52,850. It is not in dispute that the house was purchased by the assessee before 1981. Therefore, the assessee has the option of estimating the fair market value for the purpose of cost of the house as on 01-04-1981. The fair market value is nothing but a price agreed between a willing buyer and willing seller. The market value may fluctuate depending upon various factors and the necessity or urgency of the purchaser and the seller. The market price may depend upon various factors such as area of the land, location of the land, access to the land and infrastructure facilities around the area, proximity to the infrastructure, potential for future development etc. In this case, it is not in dispute that the subject land of 75.046 cents of land was situated few metres away from the bypass road which is part of NH 47 in Trikkakara panchayat. The comparable land of 5 cents is situated abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iation of facts, the valuation made by the valuer officer cannot be rejected in toto. When the valuation officer claims that taking 10% of the cost of construction backwards year after year is one of the methods of valuation; the same cannot be rejected by the assessing officer unless he points out a contrary practice adopted by other approved valuers or any statutory rule or regulation made by the concerned authorities. In the absence of any statutory rule or regulation or the practice adopted by other experts in valuation, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer cannot simply say that there is no such practice. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the approved valuer who is competent to value the land and buildings claims that taking 10% of the sale consideration backwards year after year is one of the approved methods, the same cannot be rejected unless and until the assessing officer refers the matter to the DVO if at all he has any doubt. In this case, the assessing officer has not referred the matter to the DVO. In the absence of any valuation made by the DVO, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer is not....