TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the extent of 4800 sq.ft. As per the sale deed, according to the Ld. representative, the assessee received Rs. 50,00,000/- towards sale consideration. However, the Assessing Officer adopted the sale consideration under Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 90,20,000/-. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee, during the course of assessment proceeding, requested the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. However, the Assessing Officer refused to do so and ultimately adopted the value under Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 90,20,000/-. According to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. representative further submitted that the assessee in turn filed a report from an Approved Valuer who estimated the cost at Rs. 50,40,000/-. According to the Ld. representative, the land is situated in the interior area of Narayanapuram Varisai and there was no proper approach road, therefore, the Approved Valuer has rightly valued the property at Rs. 50,40,000/-. 5. Shri Anandd Babunath, the Ld. representative for the assessee, further submitted that the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- towards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer at page 13 of his order, the Ld. D.R. submitted that mere production of voucher is not sufficient to prove the expenditure said to be incurred by the assessee. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 3,10,000/-. Referring to the cost of brokerage to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not furnished any details before the Assessing Officer for payment of brokerage, therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. 9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The sale deed disclosed the value of property at Rs. 50,00,000/-. However, the guideline value shows the value of the property at Rs. 90,20,000/-. The Assessing Officer adopted the guideline value of the property at Rs. 90,20,000/- and computed the capital gain accordingly. 10. We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 50C of the Act which reads as follows:- "50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer." 11. In view of the above, wherever the consideration received for transfer of property is less than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority of the State Government, for the purpose of collection of stamp duty, the value so adopted shall, for the purpose of capital gain, be deemed to be the full value of consideration received by the assessee. However, sub-sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly refuse to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The valuation under Section 50C of the Act has to be made as per the provisions of Wealth Tax Act. The fair market value is nothing but a price that may be agreed between the willing purchaser and the willing seller. The fair market value is not a constant figure. It may fluctuate depending upon various factors, such as the area of the land, location of property, accessibility to the infrastructure facilities like road, airport, bus stand, colleges and other educational institutions, etc. These factors play important role in determining the fair market value. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer has not referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have accepted the value adopted by the Approved / Registered Valuer in the valuation report filed by the assessee. 14. We have carefully gone through the order of the CIT(Appeals). During the appellate proceeding, it appears that the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the DVO and the DVO appears to have estimated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is allowed. 17. Now coming to assessee's appeal in I.T.A. No.756/Chny/2017. 18. Shri Anandd Babunath, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee sold an immovable property at Flat No.16, Block No.3, Asiad Colony, Anna Nagar West, Chennai, for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The assessee admitted long term capital gain of Rs. 1,09,844/-. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee computed the capital gain after computing the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 8,40,156/- and cost of repairs in respect of the property at No.26, Lakshmanan Street, Mahalingapuram, Chennai. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee has spent about Rs. 15,50,000/- in demolition and reconstruction of the property at No.26, Lakshmanan Street, Mahalingapuram. According to the Ld. representative, the property stands in the name of the assessee's husband. The assessee, and her husband along with their children are living together in the said property. The capital gain on Rs. 15,50,000/- was used for additional construction. According to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 54F of the Act on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r with regard to long term capital gains at Rs. 25,99,844/-. The dispute is only with regard to exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs. 15,50,000/- and development charges of Rs. 3,20,000/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of exemption under Section 54F of the Act on the ground that there was no construction and investment was made in the property belonging to the assessee's husband and not in her property. 22. It is not in dispute that in India, dual ownership is permissible. In other words, the land can belong to one person and the building can belong to another person. In the case on our hand, the investment was said to be made not on the third party's property but the property belonging to the assessee's husband. The additional construction said to be made by the assessee after demolishing the part of the building belonging to her husband is not in dispute. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the additional construction made has to be construed as investment in the immovable property. It is not the case of the Revenue that additional construction made by the assessee in the building belonging to her husb....