TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arising on 'Sale of Co-ownership Land', as per the circle rate, by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. 3. Ground No. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appeal proceedings had accepted the Appellants plea to allow him to produce and file, during the course of hearing, additional evidence, in the form of Departmental Valuation Officers Report dated 16.12.2016, in respect Fair Market Valuation of co-ownership of land, the sale proceeds of which are the subject matter of Long-Term Capital Gains. The occasion to refer the valuation to DVO arose in assessment proceedings of other co-owner, namely Smt. Krishna Nand Chahal (PAN: ADOPC1352C - Legal heir of Late Mr. Krishan Kant Chahal brother of the Appellant and one of the co-owner) for AY 2011-12 where valuation report has been accepted by the Department in the assessment proceedings by the ITO Ward 1(4) Dehradun vide Assessment Order dated 29.12.2016. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, as the additional evidence has been taken cognisance of without asking for a remand report either from the Appellant's AO or from the Departmental Valuation Officer, for which he was duty bound, as per Rule 46A of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of computing capital gains in the hands of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the valuation report given by the DVO is not correct as he has reduced 50% value of the property for the reason that the size of the property was large in extent and there were no buyers for such plot. 5. The ld. Counsel before us submits that since the valuation was already done by the DVO which value was adopted by the Revenue in his brother's case, namely, Shri Krishan Kant Chahal there is no justification in adopting the fair market value of the property at Rs. 6,46,80,000/- for the purpose of computing long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page Nos. 73 & 74 of the paper book submits that the assessment in the case of his brother, who was the co-owner of the property was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act by order dated 29.12.2016 accepting the valuation report of the DVO. The ld. Counsel also referred to the valuation report of the Departmental Valuer which is placed at page Nos. 8 to 15 wherein the DVO valued the property at Rs. 3,39,57,000/-. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice demand after giving credit for prepaid taxes/TDS. Sd/- (Gulshan Kumar) Income tax Officer Ward 1(4), Dehradun." 8. The above assessment order in the case of assessee's brother has become final. In the case of the assessee, however, the Assessing Officer adopted the fair market value of the property sold at Rs. 6,46,80,000/- for the purpose of computing capital gains ignoring the valuation report of the DVO and the assessment made in assessee's brother's case wherein the valuation of the DVO was adopted for computing long term capital gains. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also did not accept the contention of the assessee for adopting the DVO valuation in assessee's case also for the purpose of computing the long term capital gain which in our view, is not justified. Having adopted the DVO's valuation in one of the co-owners case who is the brother of the assessee for the assessment year i.e. 2011-12 for computing the long term capital gain, we see no justifiable reason to adopt a different valuation in assessee's case for computing long term capital gain for his 1/6th share for the very same assessment year i.e. 2011-12. 9. Our view is supported by the decision of the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aluation officer appointed under Section 12A of the Act. The learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the order, dated January 7, 1975, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ludhiana, was not based on a full-fledged enquiry. We do not agree with this submission because the order on the face of it shows that it had been passed under Section 16(3) of the Act which contemplates an enquiry in which evidence can be led and the assessee can also be heard. So long as this order is not challenged in appeal or revision, it is not open to the department to adopt a different yardstick in the case of the present assessee. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, we answer the questions referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." 10. Following the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai Vs. CWT (supra) the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kumararani Smt. Meenakshi Achi [(2007) 292 ITR 624 (Mad)] held as under:- "6. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue without going into the merits of the case, merely on the basis of the co-owner's case being dropped; and that th....