TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'the Act') for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. In the instant case, the Assessee declared a total loss of Rs.1,92,86,667/- by filing its return of income electronically on dated 17.10.2016, which was taken into consideration for limited scrutiny and thereafter various statutory notices were issued to the Assessee, in response to which, the Assessee filed necessary details/clarifications. 2.1 By perusing the return filed by the Assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the Assessee has sold a property for a consideration of Rs.15,39,45,000/- to M/s. SAPL Industries Pvt. Ltd. However, for stamp duty purposes, the value of the property was taken at Rs.18,18,06,500/-. Therefore, finding difference ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69/- Add: Interest paid on loan to be capitalized Rs.35,59,840/- Add: Brokerages (TDS paid to be capitalized) Rs.23,09,175/- Add: Foreclosure of loan charges to be capitalized Rs.20,87,194/- Cost of property : Rs.17,26,98,678/- 2.4 The Assessing Officer ultimately under the provisions of section 50C of the Act, computed the fair market value of the property for the purpose of computing capital gain on the transfer of the asset at Rs.17,72,11,000/- and cost of the property upto the date of sale at Rs.17,26,98,678/- and in the result added the amount of Rs.45,12,322/- (12,72,11,000 - 17,26,98,678) being the difference between the fair market value and the cost of property upto the date of sale. The Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/ which is less than the value adopted for stamp duty purposes. This also proves that the value adopted for stamp duty purpose was in excess of the fair market value of the property as on date of sale. Accordingly, it is submitted that no adverse inference could have been made by the AO u/s 50Cofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.2 Even the reference to the DVO, the report of the DVO and the value mentioned therein are erroneous. From the report of the DVO it can be seen that there is no reference to section 50C of the Income Tax Act. As per the valuation report the reference / purpose of valuation was for determining the estimation of value of investment made by the assessee company. Even the value of Rs. 17,72,11,000/ determined by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21). Further in the valuation report amount of Rs. 8682257/ has been added for Car Parking whereas the sales consideration received by the assessee was full value of consideration and no separate consideration was to be received in respect of car parking nor any separate sale deed was registered by stamp valuation authority in respect of car parking. Even in the sales instances given by DVO in his report there is no mention of separate amount for car parking. Therefore, this amount of Rs.8682257/ mentioned in the valuation report is also excessive and erroneous. 3.3 Without prejudice it is submitted that the valuation by the DVO is merely and estimate and it is not possible that each and every property in a particular area will fet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld. Commissioner considered the submissions of the Assessee, however by relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble High courts and Tribunal held that in view of the above judicial decisions, the DVO is a specialized person and his estimate is binding upon the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting fair market value of the property at Rs.17,72,11,000/- and making addition of Rs.45,12,322/- on account of short term capital gain. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved with the confirmation of the adoption of the value of the property to the tune of Rs.17,72,11,000/- as fair market value of property instead of actual sale consideration at Rs.15,39,45,000/- by the Ld. Commissioner , is in appeal before us. ....