TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1087
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... September, 2008 the value of land cannot be taken at Rs. 20,82,712 in the month of April, 2005 ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has clearly brought out that in the registration deed there is no mention of building on the land. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the value of land taken at Rs. 30,00,000 by the Assessing Officer is highly excessive without giving any reasons for the same. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the valuation report dated December 14, 2005 submitted to the bank was only for the purposes of the bank and that value was inflated, ignoring the fact that in both valuation reports dated December 14, 2005 and December 30, 2008, submitted by the same valuer, he had arrived at the value of the building by adopting the rates as per Punjab Public Works Department common schedule and hence valuation report dated December 14, 2005 was to be relied upon by the Assessing Officer. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the value of machinery should be adopte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-08 whereas the transfer related to the assessment year 2006-07. It was pointed out that merely showing higher value to the bankers would not make the actual value higher and in this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sidhu Rice and General Mills [2006] 281 ITR 428 (P&H). 5. The assessee also furnished valuation report on the basis of the circle rate by the same valuer and it was pointed out that according to this method, the valuation comes to Rs. 41,33,766 on December 30, 2008 which was much less than the earlier valuation report. The valuation report for the machinery was also filed. 6. The Assessing Officer, after considering the submissions observed that different assets were valued at various points of time as under : Assets Book value at which the assets are transferred on April 1, 2005 Value as per valuation reports submitted to the bank and taken in the balance-sheet as on March 31, 2007 Value as per valuation report now filed before Income-tax Department. Land 5,08,480 34,70,480 9,56,250 Building 10,61,560 73,36,048 31,77,516 Machinery 38,19,793 1,30,11,469 58,50,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f B.T. Steels (supra) is not applicable because in that case, bank authorities have verified the stock as shown in the statement given to the bank and same was found to be correct whereas in the present case, the bankers have not verified the valuation. He strongly relied on the following decisions : 1. CIT v. Sidhu Rice and General Mills [2006] 281 ITR 428 (P&H). 2. CIT v. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimla Devi [2005] 279 ITR 360 (All). 3. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in I. T. A. No. 526/CHD/2009 in the case of ITO, Jagraon v. New P. Grand Resorts, Jagraon. 4. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in I. T. A. No. 866/CHD/2007 in the case of Asst. CIT, Ludhiana v. Shri Rupesh Kaushal. 11. He pointed out that in the case of CIT v. Rupesh Kaushal (supra), the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has confirmed the order of the Tribunal by referring to the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). In the present case also, there is no evidence with the Department that higher consideration has been paid. Therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt has stated that the land and building was purchased together by the sale deed dated December 17, 2002 for Rs. 17,60,000 and the same has been transferred together to the company on the value of Rs. 25,00,200 in the month of September, 2008. Therefore, the value of the building cannot be taken at Rs. 30 lakhs in the month of April, 2005 which has been adopted by the Assessing Officer. 4.13 The authorised representative has stated that the valuer has valued the building at Rs. 1,77,516 as on December 30, 2008 which includes addition of Rs. 24,68,276 between the period from April 1, 2007 to December 27, 2008. If the same is reduced from the valuation of Rs. 31,77,516 adopted by the approved valuer on December 30, 2008, the value of the building in the month of April 2005 remains Rs. 7,09,240 which is less than the written down value. 4.14 Taking into consideration the entirety of the facts discussed above, I am of the opinion that value of the building at Rs. 30 lakhs adopted by the Assessing Officer, is highly excessive without any substance. In fact the building was constructed long ago and has depreciated over the years. Regarding the valuation made by the valuer showing hig....