TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considering DVO's Valuation Report and Jantri Rate Value but Valuation method adopted by DVO is not sacrosanct, it is an estimation. However, when DVO has adopted comparative sales valuation method without considering available Sales Instances. (2) Assessee has already submitted relevant evidence to prove his contention. (3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any another ground or grounds during the pendency of the appeal." 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. Assessee before us is an individual and during the assessment year under consideration, earned income from house property, long term and short-term capital gains and income from other sources. From the computation of income of assessee, it was noted by the Assessing Officer that assessee has shown the long-term capital gain from the sale of following immovable properties. S. No. Particulars of property Amount of sale consideration Date of sale 1 Block No. 39, Bharthana, Kosad 4,99,000/- (12.5% share) 24.03.2011 2 Block No. 42, Bharthana, Kosad 3,99,000/- (12.5% share) -do- To verify the jan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoked sec. 50C and applied jantry rates for calculating LTCG, since the DVO's valuation report was not received till the date of assessment. The DVO's report has since been received and the same is placed on record. The AR is objecting to the addition made on two grounds: (i) The calculation of appellant's share in the sale consideration made by Ld. AO applying jantry rate is wrong. (ii) The valuation made by the DVO is incorrect. 8.2 The reason/ground no. 1 The appellant has 12.5% in the land sold. The sale consideration as per the sale deed is Rs. 4.99 lakhs and Rs. 3.99 lakhs and the appellant's share are Rs. 62,875 and Rs. 49,875 respectively. The ld Assessing Officer while applying jantry rate calculated appellant's share at Rs. 69.00 lacs and Rs. 27.81 lacs respectively. The AR has demonstrated that the ld Assessing Officer has mistakenly taken total value as per jantry rate as assessee's share in the property whereas assessee's share being 12.5% comes to Rs. 8,62,537 and Rs. 3,47,625 respectively. This dispute is anyway resolved by the Valuation Report of the DVO. The DVO has valued the two properties as under: Sr. No. Description....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. It is further seen that, on ignoring the 3rd sale instance, the average price is reduced to Rs. 550 which practically defeats the very purpose of introduction of sec. 50C. In view of the above considerations, this ground and arguments of the AR on the valuation of DVO is rejected." 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. At the outset, Shri Mehul K. Patel, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that DVO's report is not correct and he took us through paper book page-11 and stated that the total area of land is 6273 sq.mt. and as per assessee the selling price is Rs. 80 per sq.mt. however, the DVO has taken the value of the land at Rs. 1012 per sq.mt, which is not a reasonable sale price. The Ld. Counsel took us through paper book page-16, wherein comparative sale instances are given, which is reproduced below: Sr. No. Amount (Rs) Location Area (sq.mt.) Rate (Rs/m2 ) Seller Regd. No/ Purchaser Date 1 1,46,19,000/- Agri. land at Block No. 45, RS No. 57/1A, 43, 44, BharthanaKosad 29,238 500 Dhanjiibhai N Patel and others Jivrajbhai S Dakara 4793 07/03/2011 2 1,28,00,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty. The Ld. DR, on merits of the case, submitted that comparable sale price adopted by DVO is correct and assessee has not submitted any comparable sale instances from his side to dispute the comparable sale price adopted by DVO. Hence, the sale value adopted by the DVO should be considered for calculation of long-term capital gains and addition made by the Assessing Officer may be upheld. 12. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. In our considered view, it was wholly erroneous on the part of the Ld. DVO to determine the fair market value of property by taking one of the sale instances for 4654 sq. meter land at Rs. 1718.95 per sq. meter as compared to assessee`s size of land at 6273 Sq. meter, which was valued by assessee at Rs. 80 per sq. meter. The other sale instances taken by the Ld. DVO were 500 and 596.79 per sq. meter. Therefore, to compute the average sale price at Rs. 1012 per sq. meter, the Ld. DVO ought not to have taken sale instance at Rs. 1718.95 per sq. meter, as size of the land and other factors explained by ld Counsel have not considered by l....