TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1) Surat (in short "the AO"). 2. Ground No. 1 & 5 : are not pressed before us, hence, these are treated as dismissed. 3. Ground No.1 and 2 relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 24,21,602 on account of long-term capital gain on sale of land by the assessee by accepting valuation report of DVO who is not qualified Valuer of agricultural land and not accepting the valuation report of Government Approved Valuer, who is qualified Valuer for agricultural land. 4. At the out set, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that issue is covered by decision of Surat bench of ITAT by decision in the case of co-owners of land so sold in the case of Smt. Hem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per sq.mtr made addition of Rs. 7,17,188/- in the case of the assessee being his share, in long term capital gain. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) observed that the valuation report relating to lack of comparable sale instances chosen by the DVO in respect 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated at more favourable position as compared to the land situated in respect of comparable sale instances. Therefore, the approved valuer of the assessee has rightly taken the FMV @ 290 per sq.mtr. The ld.Counsel further submitted that even if the CIT(A) 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is worked out to Rs. 210 i.e. (162 + 290 + 178 = 630/3= 210). The AO, therefore, accordingly directed to reworked out the index cost of acquisition by taking FMV at Rs. 210 per sq.mtr and re-compute the taxable long term gain, accordingly this ground of the assessee is therefore partly allowed." 7. Since the facts are same, hence, following our above decision, the AO is directed to re worked out index cost of acquisition by taken FMV at Rs. 210 per sq. meter and re-compute taxable long-term capital gain , accordingly, That Ground No. 1 and 2 are partly allowed. 8. Ground No. 3 relates to confirming the addition of Rs. 12,25,000 made on account of difference in Jantri Value by applying the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 9. Fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee's case, the submissions of the assessee cannot be ignored. The sale consideration of the land considered is shown at 5.11 crore in registered sale deed, the stamp valuation authorities have determined the full value of consideration at Rs. 5.60 crore. Even assuming for a movement that the sale consideration in respect of Plot in survey no.128/2 is less than the stamp valuation it is Rs. 3,06,250/- which is less than 10% of the stamp duty valuation of the said plot. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the decisions relied on by the assessee, the assessee should succeed in its appeal. The Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Sita Bai Ketan (supra) held as under : 4.2 "We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available....