TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in retaining the addition on account of difference between the sales consideration and the valuation done by the DVO. (2) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted addition in respect of those properties where difference in value between that of the DVO and the registered sales deed was less than 15%. (3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the orders of lower authorities are that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that assessee has purchased four pieces of land during the financial year under consideration f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther option, except to decide the case on merit. The AO on the basis of report in respect of property at Prathampura, Tal - Savli from DVO, Vadodara and in respect of remaining Three (03) properties on the basis of Jantri Rate recorded on purchase deed, made total addition of Rs. 1.64 crore to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed written submissions before the ld. CIT(A), as recorded in para 5 of his order. In the written submission, the assessee stated that during the assessment, references were made to DVO for determination of fair market value of all the plots of lands. Before passing the assessment order, the rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... copy of sale deed showing ½ share. For property shown at serial No. 4 the assessee has 1/4th share in the property. To substantiate, his contention the assessee placed on record the sale deed showing his share of as 1/4th. The assessee also explained that the fact that assesse was having ½ and 1/4th share in property shown at Sl.No.3 and 4 respectively, was brought to the notice of AO vide letter dated 23.01.2017. 5. The ld.CIT(A), after considering the contention of assessee, accepted that property shown at Sl.No.1 and 2 are similar which were sold in two parts, but Valuation Officer has taken different value of the same plot, therefore, the valuation of property shown at Sl.No.2 is to be taken at par with the property sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the DVO with regard to property shown at Sl.No.1 and 2 is only 5.77%, thus, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Proviso to section 50C(1) inserted w.e.f 01.04.2019, which enhanced the tolerance bent in valuation from 5% to 10%, which has been held to be retrospectively by the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Maria Fernandes Cheryl [2021] (123 taxmann.com 252, Mumbai) decision of Delhi Tribunal in Amrapali Cinema [2021] 127 taxmann.com 376 (Delhi). 7. The ld.AR for the assessee further submits that the fair market value (FMV) determined by DVO is based on estimation and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Rahul Construction (38 DTR 19 Pune) held that difference between the sale consideration of property shown by the assessee and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmits that whatever relief was claimed before the ld. CIT(A) was granted to the assessee. The assessee has now raised an additional plea about the tolerance range of 10% or 15% with regard to properties shown at Sl.No.1, 2 & 3, 4 respectively. The case laws relied by the assessee with regards to the property shown at S. No. 3 &4 are based on different set of fact and are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue prays for dismissal of appeal. 11. We have considered the submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that there is no mush dispute on the facts of the case. During the hearing tje ld AR for the assessee furnished a chart showing the details ....