2022 (12) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") is erroneous and bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition upto Rs. 26,86,000/- out of the addition of Rs. 27,00,500 made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income declaring income at Rs.96,18,570/- on 28.09.2015, which was processed u/s 143(1). Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has sold a flat in Arcadia building Mumbai for a consideration of Rs.1,51,00,000/-. From the sale deed, the Assessing Officer f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 Rs. 10,78,29,000/- Rs. 8,55,50,000/- 4107.97 (381.64 Sq. Mtr.) Rs. 20,825/- 82 04.12.2014 2 Rs. 2,26,32,847/- Rs. 1,89,64,000/- 1034.74 (96.13 Sq. Mtr.) Rs. 18,323/- 83 01.11.2013 3 Rs. 1,52,01,500/- Rs. 1,35,60,000/- 666.18 (61.89 Sq. Mtr.) Rs. 20,355/- 84 05.04.2013 Rate Per Sa. Ft. of the Impugned Property S. No. Market Value of the Property Sale Consideration Received Area (In Sq. Ft.) Rate (Per Sq. Ft.) (Sale Consideration/ Area) Page Number of Paper Book Date of Sale 1 Rs. 1,78,00,500/- Rs. 1,51,00,000/- 645.84 (60 Sq. Mtr.) Rs. 23,380/- 45 17.06.2014 7. Referring to the above, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation report of the DVO who valued the FMV of the property on the basis of certain instances of sales of plots in a different locality was not to be considered. This clearly lays down that comparison should be done among instances which are relatively near. In the present case, the DVO despite noting the instances himself has not followed the valuation done for the same property but had preferred to take into account adjacent building without any reason. We find considerable cogency in the assessee's submissions that DVO's approach is not correct. We note that DVO has done the valuation of the following basis. Property: "Unit No.3,8th Floor, "Arcadia" building, Arcadia Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 S....