AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short "the AO" ) under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short 'the Act') respectively. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee read as under : "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the action of Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,27,540/- out of the total addition of Rs. 7,17,188/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,06,250/- on acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 4 such instances, these are from the same village having rate per sq.mtr ranging between Rs. 64.062 Rs. 1900.371 per sq.mtr and the DVO has derived the FMV based on sale instances after making adjustment for shape, size, situation, location, time etc., vis-à-vis land under consideration. Therefore, the CIT(A) taking a holistic view of the matter and the argument of the assessee and also two favourable sale instances having value of Rs. 188.68 and Rs. 190.37 held that value taken by District Valuation Officer (DVO) without taking into consideration other sale instance having lesser value i.e. approximately 1/3rd of the value claimed by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) further observed that the value determined by the Registered valuer w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has considered the DVO's report and same is found to be unscientific, adhoc method. Further, it is also noticed from the report that sale instances are not in respect of land at same survey no.128/2 of the assessee. Further, even the CIT(A) has considered the average rate for computation of market value by increasing 10% cost of addition cost incurred as expense. Therefore, by taking a logical view the average of the value taken by the DVO, assessee and adopted by the CIT(A) be considered to workout index cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. 7. Per contra, the ld.Senior Departmental Representative(Sr.DR) supported the order of the Lower Authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of the assessee is therefore partly allowed. 9. Ground No.2 relates to confirming action of the AO by sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,06,250/- on account of difference in Jantri Value by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 10. Facts apropos of this ground are that as against the sale consideration of Rs. 5.11 crore shown in registered sale deed, the stamp valuation authorities have determined the full value of consideration at Rs. 5.60 crore and accordingly the AO has made addition of Rs. 3,06,250/- representing the assessee's share (1/6th share) in the difference of these two figures. 11. In appeal, the assessee contended before the ld.CIT(A) that since the difference between Jantri Value and actual sale value is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be sustained. 12. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The ld.Counsel submitted that the difference between the valuation as per stamp duty and the sale consideration issue by the assessee is less than 10% and in such circumstances no addition can be made. For this proposition, the ld.Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Bombay ITAT in the case of John Flower (India) Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.7545/Mum/2014 for assessment year 2010-11. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material and orders of the authorities below and the case law relied on. Considering the entire facts of the assessee's case, the submissions of the assessee cannot be ignored. The sale consideration of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 177 CTR (J&K) 232 had held that when the margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental valuer was less than 10 per cent, the difference is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. Since in the instant case such difference is less than 10 per cent and considering the fact that valuation is always a matter of estimation where some degree of difference is bound to occur, we are of the considered opinion that the AO in the instant case is not justified in substituting the sale consideration at Rs. 20,55,000/- as against the actual sale consideration of Rs. 149,00,000 disclosed by the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to take Rs. 19,00....