TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 1,85,00,000/-. The Fair Market Value for the purpose of stamp duty was adopted at Rs. 2,27,75,033/-. According to the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of section 50C, if the Fair Market Value is higher than the sale consideration received the Fair Market Value will be taken as the full value of the consideration as a result of transfer/sale. He noted that the assessee has taken the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 320 per sq. mtr, i.e. 29.73 per sq.ft. as on 01-04- 81 of Rs. 58,56,000/-. He, therefore, referred the matter to the DVO u/s.55A and 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act to determine the Fair Market Value as on 01-04-81 and 22-04-2004. The Valuation officer, Solapur vide his report dated 20-09-2010 determined the Fair Market Value as on 01-04-81 and 22-04-2004 as under : Fair Market Value determined as on 01-04-1981 - Rs. 18,48,000/- Fair Market Value determined as on 22-04-2004 - Rs. 2,59,86,000/- 2.1 The DVO determined the value of the land as on 01-04-81 at Rs. 101 per sq. mtr, thus, arrived at Rs. 1,84,800/- which comes to 9.40 per sq.ft. However, the valuation of the property made by the assessee was shown at Rs. 320/- per sq. mtr and is shown at Rs. 58,56,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst Long Term Capital Loss disclosed by the assessee at Rs. 96,08,800/-. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal- I) is erred in referring the matter for valuation cell for determining the value as on 1/4/1981 thereby misinterpreting the provisions of Section 55A(a)and (b). 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal- I) is erred in adopting the valuation as on 01/04/1981 and 22/04/2004 which is wrongly made by the Valuation Officer by referring the instances which are non-comparable to assessee's case due to location proximity and size of the property. 4. The appellant prays for admission of Additional grounds/ Additional evidence if any required to support its case. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the ground or grounds of appeal or add to the same, if deemed necessary." 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referred to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Mrs. Sangeeta Jeevan Bhonsale vide ITA No.1125/PN/2012 order dated 30- 05-2014 for A.Y. 2007-08 and submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the Assessing Officer has no power to make the reference to the DVO for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted for stamp duty purpose is Rs. 2,27,75,033/-. 7.2 It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 55A are not applicable if the value adopted by the assessee as on 01-4-1981 is more than the Fair Market Value. We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Sangeeta Jeevan Bhonsale (Supra) wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read as under : "5. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld. Counsel argues that the issue arising in the Revenue appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 98 DTR (Bom) 177. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah Vs. ITO & Anr. 6 DTR 203 (Guj). 6. In the case of Puja Prints (supra) the Hon'ble High Court has examined the powers of the Assessing Officer for making the reference u/s. 55A of the Act as well as the amendment made to Sec. 55A (a) and held as under: 7. We find that s. 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act the AO is entitled to make the reference to the Valuation Officer in a case where the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the registered valuer, if the AO is of the opinion that the value so claimed is less than the fair market value. In any other case, as provided under cl. (b) of s. 55A of the Act, the AO has to record an opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage or by more than such an amount as may be prescribed; or (ii) having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary to make such a reference. 11. As can be seen from the communication dated nil (Annex. D) from respondent No. 2 - DVO to the petitioner insofar as the fair market value of the property as on 1st April, 1981 is concerned, the petitioner had claimed the same at a sum of Rs. 6,25,000 as per registered valuer's report. Therefore, the AO was required to form an opinion that the value so claimed is less than the fair market value. The estimated value proposed by the DVO is shown at Rs. 3,97,000, which is less than the f....