TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....81 at Rs. 2.51 lakhs against Rs. 21.90 lakhs determined by Registered Valuer. 4. Authorities below ought to have noted, that subject land was since purchased before 01-04-1981, in the absence of SRO/Govt. notified value during 1976 to 1995, FMV of land having regard to the provisions of sec 55(2)(b )(ii) of the Act, was determined by the Registered Valuer at Rs. 21.90 lakhs. 5. Authorities below erred in not considering objections made before DVO and ld. AO while estimating cost of acquisition of land as on 01-04-1981. 6. Authorities below erred in law in making reference to DVO Dis 50C of the Act for valuation of acquisition cost of land as on 01-04-1981 and consequent valuation report being invalid and is bad in law. Without prejudice to above the appellant contends that : 7. Authorities below erred in law in determining acquisition cost of land on 01-04-1981 at Rs. 2.51 lakhs pursuant to provisions of Sec 55A of the Act when the appellant admitted acquisition cost at higher value at Rs. 21.90 lakhs. 8. The appellant contends while the cost of acquisition of property admitted by appellant at higher value at Rs. 21.90 lakhs, ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both the lower authorities' action making Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) addition of Rs. 9,97,42,562 as upheld in the CIT(Appeals) order as follows : " 5. Grounds No.2.1 to 2.5, 5,6.7 and 8.1 to 9.2 of appeal pertain to the action of the AO in adopting FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 2.50 lakhs as against Rs. 21.90 lakhs adopted by the appellant. The AR submitted that in the absence of the SRO Government valuation during the period 1976 to 1995 and in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(2)(b) of the Act, the FMV of the land as on 01.04.1981 has to be determined as per the valuation of the registered valuer and relied upon a number of case laws of ITAT in support of the contention. The registered valuer determined the FMV based on the index value on reverse working method, which has been approved by the courts including that of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of ACIT vs Aditya Waghray &. Arpan Waghray dated 30.12.2016. The AO made reference to OVO for determining the FMV as on 01.04.1981 u/s.50C of the Act. The provisions of Section 5OC are applicable only when the property is sold, whereas in the present case, the assessee purchased the land. The DVO through his communic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and therefore is liable to throw into dustbin. 6.1 Coming to the legal validity of reference made by the AO to the DVO and the report submitted by the DVO, my observations are as under:- 6.1.1 From the perusal of reference made by the A.O to the DVO as available in the assessment record, it is seen that nowhere it was mentioned the reference was made u/s 5OC of the IT Act. Therefore, the alleged notice given by the DVO to the appellant that FMV is being done u/s.5OC of the Act is of little relevance. As regards the contention that reference u/s.55A cannot be made to the DVO before 01.07.2012 when the cost of capital asset is more than FMV, it is my considered opinion that the relevant provisions of Section 5OC or 55A are applicable with regard sale of the property. In the present case, the FMV of the asset, which was acquired was sought to be ascertained, rather than the property which is sold. Since, the appellant did not furnish the guideline value of SRO as on 01.04.1981, the AO chose to avail the services of the DVO for arriving at the FMV as on 01.04.1981. It cannot be the contended that the AO cannot avail the services of experts available with the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch more than that determined by the departmental authorities. 8. Learned department representative has placed a very strong reliance on both the lower authorities action rejecting assessee's registered valuer's report. 9. We have given our thoughtful considerations to rival pleadings. Suffice to say, the assessee's endeavour herein to claim the fair market value of its capital asset as per her registered valuer's report going by sec. 55A(a), its amendment and therefore, this valuation report to have been adopted @ Rs. 1308 per sq. yard as on 1.4.1981. All these assessee's arguments fail to evoke our concurrence. This is mainly for the reason that there is hardly any time gap worth counting between the date of assessee's purchase deed i.e. 1.9.1980 and the statutory clauses of cost of acquisition i.e. 1.4.1981 respectively. And also that her registered valuer's report dt.30.1.2015 in pages 33-36 of the paper book does not even make a mention if at all he had even tried to find any comparable case in the concerned Masab Tank locality. This registered valuer's report deserves rejection only on account of these clinching aspect(s). We rather notice that the DVO's ....