TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/-. The assessee had taken this value on the basis of stamp duty valuation of the said property in accordance with the provisions of section 50C of the Act. As the assessee had taken the cost of acquisition of the said property at FMV of 01.04.2001 at Rs. 5,98,73,000/- being 50% of her share and this value was arrived on the basis of a valuation report dated 02.08.2018 given by a government approved valuer for the purpose of section 55(2)(b) of the Act. On the basis of this, the resultant capital gain of Rs. 19,62,703/- was offered to tax in the return of income. However, the AO had rejected the valuation report provided by the assessee and determined the cost of acquisition of the said property as on 01.04.2001 by relying the circle rate for Delhi notified for the financial year 2007-08 and proposed an upward adjustment of Rs. 16,87,71,759/- on account of differential capital gain which was challenged by the assessee before the DRP and giving relief to the assessee, the DRP had directed the AO to recompute the said property on the basis of residential land conversion rates of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as notified by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO failed to specify the Section under which the impugned addition of Rs. 9,24,77,040/- was made, making the addition legally unsustainable. 8. The learned AO/DRP grossly erred by substituting the cost of acquisition value by L&DO rates as circle rate, as there were no circle rates existing in Delhi as on 01.04.2001. 9. The learned AO/DRP erred by ignoring the fact that upto A.Y. 2020- 21, the FMV was to be adopted for determining the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.2001 and not the circle rate, if the same was not existing in 01.04.2001. 10. The teamed AO/DRP erred by treating the L&DO land rates as FMV of the property of the assessee as on 01.04.2001, ignoring the fact that L&DO land rates are neither the circle rates nor the FMV of the property, but are rates to determine the unearned increase in case the L&DO property is transferred by the transferor and are basically the rates to determine the transfer charges payable to L&DO on transfer of L&DO property. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act despite nonsatisfaction of mandatory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rban Development may be used to corroborate the valuation reports prepared by expert or the DVO but resorting to these independent parameters without getting DVO report is not what the Act expects. The evidentiary value of the valuation report given by expert needs to be disturbed by the AO on the basis of factual findings in the valuation report, rather on a general assumption or applying the rules of prudence, like done in present case. The valuation report of the registered valuer has been prepared by qualified expert in the field after inspection of the premises and carrying out technical analysis. The same cannot be brushed aside on bald allegations that valuation done has been on higher side. As a matter of fact, supplementary comparable sale deeds were provided by the assessee during assessment proceedings to corroborate the FMV determined by the registered valuer in the valuation report, however, the same have also not been considered by the AO. The AO having sufficient powers of inquiry on his own has also not done any exercise of his own to inquire into the value of the surrounding property to disturb the FMV given by the qualified expert. 6. Then, without mentioning rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he land by taking into account the rate as adopted by the valuer. As for completeness, the findings of the coordinate Bench in para 5.1 to 5.5 are reproduced below:- "5.1 Similarly, in the case of Pyare Mohan Mathur HUF Vs ITO (in ITA No. 471/Agra/2009 vide order dated 21/04/2011) the Agra Bench of the ITAT has held that in view of the provision of section 55A once the assessee has submitted the necessary evidence by way of the valuation report made by the registered valuer, the onus gets shifted on the AO to contradict the report of the registered valuer. The registered valuation officer is a technical expert and the opinion of an expert cannot be thrown out without bringing any material to the contrary on record. In case the AO was not agreeable with the report of the registered valuer, he was duty bound to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the land as on which he failed to do so. The tribunal held that the revenue has not discharged the onus but merely rejected the fair market value taken by the assessee. It set aside the order of the CIT (A) and directed the AO to recompute the capital gain after taking the fair market value of the land as o....