TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 26.4.2011 for A.Y.2006-07 by CIT(A),vi, Abad, partly confirming the order u/s. 143(3) dated 28.11.2008 passed by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in passing the impugned order without considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the value as on 1.4.1981 of land appartent to the house property at Rs. 560 per sq. yard as against Rs. 800 per sq. yard estimated by regd. valuer. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 5.2. This leaves us with the sole issue of valuation of the assessee's plot sold and building erected thereupon as on 01-04- 1981 for the purpose of computing its long term capital gains. The assessee-an HUF co-owned a plot FP NO. 418, SP No. 4, TPS3- (varied), opposite Municipal Commissioner's Bungalow, Ellis bridge, Ahmedabad measuring 1032.15 sq. yd. having constructed area of 351 sq. yd. It sold the same for Rs. 28,38,000/- in relevant previous year. Its registered valuer adopted land portion's value @ Rs. 800 per sq. yd as on 01-04-1981after taking into account five sale deeds in the same ward dated 03-01-1980, 22-01-1982, 01-02-1980, 12-09- 1980 and 23-03-1981 @ Rs. 519.6 per sq. yd, Rs. 800.06, Rs. 635.39, Rs. 1,174.48 and Rs. 600....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Tor 35 year old construction. The cost of acquisition is worked out for construction is as under: Cost declared by the valuer Rs. 574000/- as on 01-04-81 without any indexation. Indexed price for cost of acquisition is Rs. 574000/- for construction and Rs. 577920/- for land and totaling Rs. 11,51,920/-. The assessee is eligible for proportionate cost of acquisition and the same is Rs. 5,75,960/-. Thus capital gain is arrived at Rs. 28,38,000/- (-) 5,75,960/- = 22,62,040/-. The long term capital gain chargeable to tax is declared at Rs. 1098500/- where in correctly it is Rs. 22,62,040/-. The difference of Rs. 11,63,540/- added to the Long term capital gain chargeable to tax amounting Rs. 11,63,540/-.". 4.2 The appellant has submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of surrounding area and put the average value of both this transaction at 560 per sq. yard. This working is baseless. Investment in R.E.C. Bond is also not consider by A.O. (Copy enclosed) Initiation of penalty U/s. 271(l)(c) shows the prejudiced approach of the A.O. The working of A.O. is purely surmises and conjectures. With these facts and submission it is prayed to give justice to the assessee by deleting the addition made on wrong footing and to consider the retuned income intact." 4.3 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submission. Appellant disputed assessing officer's action of taxing long-term capital gain on sale of property on the following grounds- 1- Assessing officer r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant's valuation at RS 574000. The appellant valued the building at RS 1550 per square yard. As on 1-04-1981, the cost of construction cannot be RS 1550 which was there around 2001. The cost of construction at that point of time could not be more than RS 500 per square yard. Assessing officer is therefore directed to apply the rate of RS 500 per square yard for 351 square yard construction. The value of building as on 1-04-1981 comes to RS 175500. Assessing officer is directed to compute long-term capital gain by adopting the aforesaid land and building value as on 1-04- 1981. As regards assessing officer's action of not allowing indexation while computing long-term capital gain, I do not find the action of AO appropria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; coming to Rs. 560 per sq. yd. The other three sale instances forming part of record stand totally brushed aside without any finding to the contrary. We observe in these circumstances that both the authorities below have erred in overruling assessee's registered valuer's report without quoting any material or making necessary reference to the DVO. We hold in these peculiar fact that a remand order simplicitor would not be in the interest of justice. More so, when they impugned long term capital gains on both plots sold and constructed portion are of Rs. 11,63,540/- only to be assessed @ 20%. We take into account all these facts and circumstances and conclude that both the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has wrongly rejected assessee's ....