Kurian Joseph, Cochin V. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 137/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81346 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R KRISHNA IYER
• Keywords: Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI CHANDRA PO OJARI (AM) I.T.A NO. 137/COCH/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) KURIAN JOSEPH VS DY.CIT, CIR.2(1) AMBAT HOUSE ERNAKULAM TRIKKAKARA, KOCHI 682 021 PAN : ABXPJ2383D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R KRISHNA IYER RESPONDENT BY : SMT. LATHA V KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 16-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-10-2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)- II, KOCHI DATED 02-12-2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DETER MINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 WHILE COMPUTING THE C APITAL GAIN ON SALE OF 75.046 CENTS OF LAND. 2 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 3. SHRI R KRISHNA IYER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD 75.046 CENTS OF LAND TOGETHE R WITH TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,75,52 ,850. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE LAND WAS ADMITTEDLY PURCHASE D PRIOR TO 1981, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.45,000 PER CENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATIO N OF CAPITAL GAIN., HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01- 04-1981 AT RS.3,000 PER CENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ALSO RESTRICTED THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE IN THE LAND AT RS.7 LAKHS AS AGAINST CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 12,54,427. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER HOUSE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE AT RS.15 LAKHS INSTEAD OF RS.16 LAKHS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE VALUATION REPORT, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRES ENTYATIVE, THE PROPERTY WAS VALUED BY AN APPROVED VALUER SHRI R.V. MOHAN TH AMPURAN AND HE ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 51,272 P ER CENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T FOUND ANY DEFECT IN THE VALUATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD.RE PRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO HAV E PLACED RELIANCE ON THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DATED 19-01-1980 FOR THE PURPOS E OF ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.3,000 PER CENT. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COST O F IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED ON THE OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS NOT CONSIDERED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ABOUT RS.7 LAKHS. SIMILARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED R S.6,62,000. 4. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS NALUKETTU TYPE BUILDING WITH TEAKWOOD AND ROSE WOOD . THE SAID HOUSE WAS RENOVATED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT AND RENOV ATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED SECOND FLOOR IN THE BUILDING BY USI NG THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SOUTHERN INVESTMENTS PVT LTD TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15 LAKHS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE BUILDING AT RS.15 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.3,000 PER CENT IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF 5 CENTS OF LAND WHEREAS IN THE ASSESS EES CASE WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS 75.046 CENTS OF LAND. THEREFORE , THE LAND REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THAT O F THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE APPROVED VA LUER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE LOCATION OF THE LAND, AREA OF THE LAND, INFRAST RUCTURE AVAILABLE NEARER TO THE LAND ESTIMATED THE SAME AFTER TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.51,270 PER CENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND 4 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 ANY DEFECT IN THE VALUATION MADE BY THE APPROVED VA LUER. THEREFORE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NO REASON TO REJECT THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE APPROVED VALUER. 5. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT AT PRESENT A MULTI STOREYED BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED WI TH 80 APARTMENTS. THE LAND IS SITUATED NEARER TO TRIKKAKARA. TRIKKAKKARA IS A VERY PROMINENT RESIDENTIAL LOCALITY WITH VERY GOOD ACCESS / PROXIM ITY. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, TRIKKAKARA IS ONE OF THE FAST DE VELOPING AREA IN ERNAKULAM TOWN. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED ON THE BYPASS ROAD WHICH IS PART OF NATION AL HIGHWAY 47. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND IS SITUATED A FEW METERS AWAY FROM THE BYPASS ROAD. THEREFORE, THE A PPROVED VALUER, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE VALUE BACKWARDS BY ALLOWING DEDUCT6ION OF 10% FOR EACH YEAR. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T IT IS ALSO ONE OF THE APPROVED METHODS OF VALUATION AS SUGGESTED BY THE A PPROVED VALUER. 6. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVE D VALUER HAS ALSO INSPECTED 5 CENTS OF LAND WHICH WAS TAKEN AS A REFE RENCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPROVED VALUER FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND THE ACCESS TO THAT FIVE CENTS OF LAND IS ONLY THROUGH A PADDY 5 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 FILED. THE FIVE CENTS OF LAND COMPARED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS 2 KMS AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND IN QUESTION WH EREAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND IS VERY FEW METRES AWAY FROM THE BY PASS ROAD WHICH IS PART OF NH 47. THEREFORE, THE APPROVED VALUER, AFTER TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE LOCALITY, PROMINENCE OF THE PLACE, DEVELOPME NT OF RESIDENTIAL COLONY, ETC. HAS ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THEREFOR E, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE FIVE CENTS OF LAND COMPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAND. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 29,44,114. THE LD.REPRESENTTIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE AT 12,54,327. THE BUILDING WAS A NALUKET TU TYPE OF HOUSE WITH TEAKWOOD AND ROOD WOOD. THE HOUSE IS WELL MAINTAIN ED BY RENOVATING THE SAME FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOW EVER, ESTIMATED THE SAME AT RS.7 LAKHS INSTEAD OF RS.12,54,327. ACCORD ING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO H AVE ACCEPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF ANOT HER HOUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKEN THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE AT R S.15 LAKHS INSTEAD OF RS.16 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE VALUE AT RS.16 LAKHS. T HE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED T HE VALUE AT RS.45,000 PER CENT BY CONSIDERING THE LOCALITY, INFRASTRUCTUR E FACILITY AVAILABLE NEAR TO 6 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 THE LAND. THEREFORE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AR E NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-0 4-1981 AT RS.45,000 PER CENT, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE SAME AT RS.3,000 PER CENT. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF 5 CENTS OF LAND WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE REPORT OF TH E VALUATION OFFICER COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE REG ISTERED DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF 5 CENTS OF LAND WAS REGISTERED IN EDAPPA LLY SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE ON 19-01-1980 WHICH STATES THE SALE CONSIDER ATION AT RS.2,040 PER CENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED RS.3, 000 PER CENT IN A FAIR MANNER AS ON 01-04-1981. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO T HE LD.DR, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 8. COMING TO THE VALUATION OF THE HOUSE, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE COST AT RS.39,67,783. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE SAME AT RS.7 LAKHS BASED ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIG HTLY ESTIMATED THE VALUE AT RS.7 LAKHS. THE SECOND HOUSE WAS VALUED AT RS.1 5 LAKHS BY THE 7 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF RS.16 LAKHS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION VARI OUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND THE VALUE OF THE OLD HOUSE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CI T(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 75.046 CENTS OF LAND AT PALLIPROM IN TRIKKAKKA RA PANCHAYAT FOR RS.4,57,52,850. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE HOUS E WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 1981. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS THE OPTION OF ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COST OF THE HOUSE AS ON 01-04-1981. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS NOTHING BUT A PRICE AGREED BETWEEN A WILLING BUYER AND WILLING SELLER. THE MARKET VALUE MAY FLUCTUATE DEPENDING UPON VARIOUS FACTORS AND THE NECESSITY OR URGENCY O F THE PURCHASER AND THE SELLER. THE MARKET PRICE MAY DEPEND UPON VARIOUS F ACTORS SUCH AS AREA OF THE LAND, LOCATION OF THE LAND, ACCESS TO THE LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AROUND THE AREA, PROXIMITY TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE, P OTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ETC. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPU TE THAT THE SUBJECT LAND OF 75.046 CENTS OF LAND WAS SITUATED FEW METRES AWAY F ROM THE BYPASS ROAD WHICH IS PART OF NH 47 IN TRIKKAKARA PANCHAYAT. TH E COMPARABLE LAND OF 5 CENTS IS SITUATED ABOUT 2 KMS AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND. FROM 8 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE FORE THE CIT(A) IT APPEARS, BOTH THE LANDS ARE AT PALLIPROM, VAZHAKKAL A VILLAGE, THRIKKAKARA PANCHAYAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPARABLE 5 CENTS OF LAND IS 2 K MS AWAY FROM THE BYPASS ROAD. MERELY BECAUSE BOTH THE LANDS ARE SIT UATED AT PALLIPROM, VAZHAKALA VILLAGE, TRIKKARA PANCHAYAT IT DOES NOT M EAN THAT BOTH THE LANDS WILL HAVE THE SAME VALUE. THE LAND WHICH IS NEARER TO THE BYPASS ROAD WHICH IS PART OF NH 47 WOULD FETCH MORE VALUE THAN THE LAND WHICH IS 2 KMS AWAY FROM THE BYPASS ROAD. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAU SE BOTH THE LANDS FALL WITHIN THE PALLIPROM, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, TRIKKAKAR A PANCHAYAT, THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE IT AS A COMPARABLE CASE. IN OT HER WORDS, THE LAND SITUATED FEW METRES AWAY FROM THE BYPASS ROAD WHICH IS PART OF NH-47 WILL HAVE MORE ACCESS TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY HAVING POT ENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND IS NOW HAVING MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING WITH 80 APARTMEN TS. THESE FACTORS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY BOTH THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. 10. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS PUTED THE FACT THAT THE COMPARABLE LAND OF 5 CENTS WAS A WETLAND ONLY ON TH E GROUND THAT A TILE ROOF HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED THEREON. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE LAND WAS CLASSIFIED AS A WETLAND AND WHETHER THE TI LE ROOF CONSTRUCTED THEREON IS PART OF THE WETLAND OR NOT? IF IT IS PA RT OF THE WETLAND, THEN, THERE 9 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 WAS A RESTRICTION TO CONVERT THE SAME FOR RESIDENTI AL / COMMERCIAL USE. THEREFORE, THE SAID LAND OF 5 CENTS CANNOT HAVE SIM ILARITIES AS THAT OF THE LAND WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION IN TH IS CASE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IF A BUILDING WITH A TILE ROOF WAS CONSTRUCTED ON A WETLAND IT WILL NOT LOSE ITS CLASSIFICATION AS AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, CONSTRUCTION OF ANY FURTHER BUILDING MAY NOT BE ALL OWED IN THE STATE OF KERALA SINCE THERE WAS A TOTAL PROHIBITION FOR CONV ERSION OF WETLAND INTO RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL USE. 11. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EXPERT I N VALUATION. THE VALUATION OF THE LAND AND BUILDING IS EXCLUSIVE DOM AIN OF THE APPROVED VALUATION OFFICERS SINCE THEY HAPPENED TO BE THE EX PERT IN THIS FIELD. UNLESS, THERE IS AN APPARENT ERROR IN THE VALUATION OR MISAPPROPRIATION OF FACTS, THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUER OFFICER CAN NOT BE REJECTED IN TOTO. WHEN THE VALUATION OFFICER CLAIMS THAT TAKING 10% O F THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION BACKWARDS YEAR AFTER YEAR IS ONE OF TH E METHODS OF VALUATION; THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNLESS HE POINTS OUT A CONTRARY PRACTICE ADOPTED BY OTHER APPROVED VALUE RS OR ANY STATUTORY RULE OR REGULATION MADE BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY RULE OR REGULATION OR THE PRACTICE ADOPTE D BY OTHER EXPERTS IN VALUATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT SIMPLY SAY THAT THERE IS NO SUCH PRA CTICE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF 10 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPROVED VALUER WHO IS COMPETENT TO VALUE THE LAND AND BUILDINGS CLAIMS THAT TAKING 10% OF TH E SALE CONSIDERATION BACKWARDS YEAR AFTER YEAR IS ONE OF THE APPROVED ME THODS, THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECTED UNLESS AND UNTIL THE ASSESSING O FFICER REFERS THE MATTER TO THE DVO IF AT ALL HE HAS ANY DOUBT. IN THIS CAS E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO. IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT T HERE IS NO PRACTICE OF TAKING 10% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION BACKWARDS YER AFTER Y EAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION. 11. NOW COMING TO THE VALUATION OF THE LAND, THE LA ND IS ADMITTEDLY SITUATED FEW METRES AWAY FROM THE BYPASS ROAD WHICH IS PART OF NH 47. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NH 47 AND BYPASS ROAD WAS FORMED EVEN IN THE YEAR 1981. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND HAS PROXI MITY TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY. IT HAS POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT B ECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION. THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-STORE Y BUILDING CONSISTING OF 80 APARTMENTS. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL TH ESE FACTORS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LAND WOULD DE FINITELY FETCH NEARLY RS.45,000 PER CENT. EVEN THOUGH THE APPROVED VALUE R ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT 51,272 PER CENT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THE VALUE OF THE LAND ONLY AT RS.45,000 PER CENT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION 11 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT JUSTIFIED IN RE STRICTING THE SAME AT RS.3,000 PER CENT. THE LAND COMPARED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS 2 KMS AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND, THEREFORE, TH E VALUE OF THAT 5 CENTS OF LAND CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A COMPARABLE CASE FOR ESTIM ATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LAND. THEREFORE, TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.3,000 PER CENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE RS.45,000 PER CENT AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981. 12. NOW COMING TO THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THE VALUE OF THE OLD HOUSE AT RS.12,54,327 THE ASSE SSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE SAME AT RS.7 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT T HE OLD HOUSE WAS NALUKETTU WITH TEAKWOOD AND ROSE WOOD AND IT WAS WE LL MAINTAINED BY RENOVATION FROM TIME TO TIME. THERE IS NO REFERENC E ABOUT THIS HOUSE IN THE VALUATION REPORT. THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE HOUSE WAS BUILT WITH TEAK WOOD AND ROSE WO OD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE VALUE AT RS.7 LAK HS. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER HOUSE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS VALUE AT RS.16 LAK HS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE VALUE AT RS.15 LAKH S. THE APPROVED VALUER HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINION ABOUT THE VALUE OF TH IS HOUSE. THE REMAND 12 ITA NO.137/COCH/2014 REPORT IS ALSO SILENT. NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OR OTHERWISE TO INDICATE THE VALUE OF THE LAND. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THE VALUE AT RS .15 LAKHS. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 17 TH OCTOBER, 2014 PK/- COPY TO: 1. KURIAN JOSPEH, AMBAT HOUSE, TRIKAKKARA 2. THE DY.CIT, CIR.2(1), ERNAKULAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-II, KOCHI 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH