TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acquisition of the asset as on 01.04.1981 relying upon the report of DVO. 2. The facts in brief are that assessee is an individual who had sold property for a sale consideration of Rs. 16.35 crores during the year under consideration and has consequentially declared Long Term Capital Gain and claimed deduction u/s.54. The property under consideration was situated at 67, Paschim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi which belonged to Smt. Vidhya Wati Pandit, who vide her will dated 03.01.1992 bequeathed her entire one half undivided share in the said property equally in favour of her two heirs, namely, Shri Priya Ranjan Pandit and Shri Shiv Ranjan Pandit. The assessee's share in the said property came to 25% of the undivided share. In response to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver he sent the entire submission of the assessee to the Assessing Officer to send his remand report and also directed the Assessing Officer to call for the comments of the DVO. Accordingly, Assessing Officer has submitted the remand report vide letter dated 08.08.2017 after calling for the comments of the DVO with respect to objections raised by the assessee. The comment of the DVO reads as under: "3. In absence of the referred valuation reports, no comments can be offered. It ma however be said that Safdarjung Area was much more developed than Vasant Vihar during 1981. Hence valuation of a Vasant Vihar property can only be done on considering the land rate lower than the land rate of Safdarjung property. 4. The valuation of the proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....educed by mere 10%. There is no denying the fagtrihat Safdarjung area was much more developed than Vasant Vihar during 1981." 5. Ld. Assessing Officer in his remand report had also distinguished the judgment relied upon by the assessee especially in the case of CIT vs. Raman Kumar Suri and Raj Kumar Khosla vs. ITO of Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein it was held that prescribed rate in Nabhi's guide cannot be substituted for the valuation of the property in Delhi done by approved valuer. 6. Ld. CIT(A) had rejected both the valuation report of approved valuer by the assessee and sustained the valuation report of the DVO and accordingly the addition made by the Assessing Officer was sustained. 7. Before us, learned counsel for the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sentative has strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) and submitted that all the objections of the assessee has been taken note of by the DVO and thus report of the DVO is far more acceptable. 9. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the relevant findings given in the impugned orders, we find that Assessing Officer has recomputed the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 10,84,67,878/- as against Rs. 10,00,87,423/- shown by the assessee. The difference amount of Rs. 83,80,455/- has been added solely on the valuation of the property as on 01.04.1981, as the assessee had shown at Rs. 69,26,000/-, whereas the DVO has reduced to Rs. 34,43,800/- which had the effect of indexation cost. From the perusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....valuation of the property. Further Court has held that empanelled registered valuer of the Income Tax Department and the valuation done by such Registered Valuer would take precedent over Nabhi's guide to house tax which is generalized guide and does not take into account the peculiar features of the property being valued. Similarly, here in this case, also entire basis of the DVO is based on the value given in the Nabhi's guide and thereafter, he has made certain adjustment which cannot be said to be a proper factor. Nabhi's rates are nothing but merely compilation of DDA's auction rate based on reasonable estimation and if he is applying the auction rate of Safdarjung area during the year 1981 which cannot be held to be applicable for th....