2017 (3) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her the indexed cost of acquisition calculated by the Assessee, which was pegged at Rs. 1,20,03,750/-, by adopting the fair market value of the land and building as on 01.04.1981, at Rs. 20,62,500/-, was correct or not. 3.In order to adjudicate upon the present appeal, the following facts are required to be noticed: 3.1.The Assessee had filed her income-tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-2010, on 01.08.2009 wherein, she admitted a total income amounting to Rs. 1,00,38,686/-. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The Assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny and accordingly, notices were issued to her under Section 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act. In response to the said notices, the Assessee, via its....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 5,00,000/- per ground; the cumulative value being Rs. 13,75,000/-. In so far as fixtures and fittings and what remained of the building was concerned, the fair market value was calculated, as on 01.04.1981, and was pegged at Rs. 6,87,500/- (46% of Rs. 15,00,000/-, which was arrived at based on the construction contract dated 23.02.1983). 3.6. The per ground cumulative value of both the land and fixtures and fittings and the debris would, approximately, by this calculation come to Rs. 7,50,000/- per ground, which is what is noted by the Assessing Officer. The cumulative fair market value of land, fixtures, fitting and debris was crystallised at Rs. 20,62,500/-. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied, though, and therefore, c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter factoring in surcharge, education cess, interests and taxes paid, a demand in a sum of Rs. 34,00,813/- was raised against the Assessee. Furthermore, notice for penalty proceedings was also issued. 4.1. The Assessee, being aggrieved, carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'CIT (A)'). The CIT (A) agreed with the Assessee, and accordingly, reversed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The operative directions of the CIT (A) are contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the order passed by him, in that regard, which is dated 29.04.2013: ''........ 15. I have considered the material facts that have been accepted in both the sale agreements contested before the respective ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sideration for reworking the index cost and capital gains.' ....' 4.2. Dissatisfied with the conclusion reached by the CIT (A), the Revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue. 4.3. The moot question, as indicated above, which confronted the Tribunal was : as to whether the Assessing Officer could substitute the guideline value provided to him, by the Sub-Registrar, as the market value. As indicated hereinabove, the Sub-Registrar had provided to the Assessing Officer the guideline value of Rs. 27,000/- per ground as on 1.4.1981, qua the subject area. 4.4. As against this, the Assessee had provided relevant material in the form of agreement for sale qua similar and co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... larger area. Therefore, the argument of Mr.Ravi Kumar, that, since, the Cathedral Road property had a larger area as against that of the subject property and hence, ought not to be used as a measure, has no weight. 7.1. Furthermore, as noticed above, the assessee himself has discounted the per ground rate of the Cathedral property which was calculated at Rs. 6,83,333/- per ground to Rs. 5,00,000/- per ground. In addition to this fact, as has been noted by us in the course of narration of events, the value of the building as obtaining in 1983 was also pared down to Rs. 6,87,500/- (i.e. 46% of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was arrived at based on the construction contract dated 23.02.1983). 8. Therefore, given the circumstances that concurrent....