2019 (1) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n short 'the Act ') dated 31.03.2015. 2. We have heard both the parties. Case file perused. It emerges at the outset that the sole dispute between the parties in the instant case is qua correctness of both the lower authorities action making LTCG addition of Rs. 59,68,094/- after invoking section 50C of the Act. Other aspects of the issue i.e. nature of capital asset, its location as well as its transfer in the relevant previous year are not question. We proceed in view of this admitted factual background to find that the CIT(A) has affirmed the AO's action vide following discussion : "4. From the submission of the assessee it emanates that his only grudge against the AO was for not sending the matter to the DVO again for reconsideration....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice on 30.06.2010 on NS-6 issued vide this office letter of even no. 92 dated 19.05.2010. The para-wise reply of the objections is as under: 1. Irregular Shape of the Plot of Land:- The assessee has claimed a 10% discount on this account. The shape of the plot is irregular but the frontage of the plot is 324' which is a very good frontage. Hence, the discount allowed of 3% is quite fair and justified. 2. Large Land Size:- Nowadays such big plots of land are not easily available, since such plots are required for construction of Shopping Malls, Residential Complex etc. The assessee has claimed a 15% discount on this account. As such big plots of lands are not easily available even then this office has allowed a discount of 2% on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his points of objection were not considered by the DVO, it emanates beyond doubt that the assessee indeed filed objections before the AO and the DVO had not found any merit in such objections of the assessee and therefore, did not change the original valuation. As it can be seen from the DVO's reply as quoted hereinabove that in the first valuation, the assessee was already allowed certain percentages of discounts on account of (i) irregular shape of the plot of land, (ii) large land size, (iii) coownership of land and (iv) low lying of land. The DVO did not allow discount for unauthorized frontage structures, as the assessee could not establish this point. Due to these very reasons, the AO did not consider it necessary to refer the mat....