2007 (9) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n at Rs. 37,98,219 as against Rs. 24,60,546 calculated by the AO after considering the report of District Valuation Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed the return of income declaring net taxable income at Rs. 86,75,610 which included long-term capital gain from sale of immovable property. During the assessment proceedings under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, the AO observed that the assessee has shown fair market value of property as in 1980-81 as Rs. 10,00,000 and indexed value in financial year 2000-01 at Rs. 40,60,000. The AO referred to the Valuation Officer under s. 55A of the IT Act vide letter dt. 5th Nov., 2002 to value the property for the purpose of determining capital gain tax. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he value so claimed is less than its fair market value. He relied upon the Special Bench (Third Member) decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. Jt. CIT [2005] 97 TTJ (Mumbai)(TM) 698 in support of his contention. 5. Having heard both the parties and having considered their rival submissions, we are in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee that the reference to the DVO can be made under s. 55A of the Act only when the AO is of the opinion that the value claimed by the assessee is less than its fair market value. In the case on hand the DVO valued the property at Rs. 6,06,046 which is less than the fair market value claimed by the assessee and the AO accepting the same proves that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had sold her Juhu bungalow by deed of assignment-cum-conveyance dt. 15th May, 2000 and received her 50 per cent share of Rs. 1,62,50,000. The assessee claimed expenses totalling Rs. 15,40,000 as expenditure incurred in connection with transfer. The AO observed that the whole of the expenditure on the transfer of the bungalow has been claimed by the assessee which is not permissible. He observed that the assessee was the co-owner of the 50 per cent of the bungalow and the sale receipt is taken separately by the assessee and co-owners. The expenses against transaction should also be shared proportionately in the share of property. 10. On enquiry by the AO, the assessee submitted that the assessee being the head of the family, it was mutually....