SHRIMATI BAKSHEESH KAUR, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (10, JALANDHAR

ITA 592/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2911 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 592/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Baksheesh Kaur, 429, Krishna Nagar, Jalandhar [PAN: AURPK9785B] (Appellant) Vs. ITO-Ward 1(10), Jalandhar. (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Vinamar Gupta, CA. Respondent by Sh. S.M.Surendra Nath Sr.D. R. Date of Hearing 02.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) -1, Jalandhar bearing appeal no. CIT(A)- 1/JAL/10244/18-19 order dated 24.06.2019, passed U/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) related to A.Y. 2011-12 which was generated from I.T.A. No. 592/Asr/2019 2 the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1)/Jalandhar, u/s 143/147 of the Act, date of order 24.12.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee sold a property measuring 56.52 marla sold on dated 24.03.2010. The full value was considered u/s 50C of the Act amount of Rs. 80 lac as per stamp duty rate. Earlier the said property was purchased before 01.04.1981. Therefore, the cost of acquisition has been determined on index on 01.04.1981. The assessee filed a valuation report of Mr. B.K. Singhal, approved valuer. As per the certificate of valuation the cost of acquisition was determined Rs.9,07,000/- as on 01.04.1981. The said report was drawn on dated 15.12.2018 by the said valuer. Accordingly, assessee calculate the capital gain tax consideration the cost of acquisition amount of Rs.9,07,000/-. But the ld. Assessing Authority (in brevity the AO) rejected the assessee’s valuation and calculated the valuation as per the date of acquisition of the said property on dated 01.01.1979. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. As per the order of the ld. CIT(A), the observation of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as below:- “During the appeal proceedings', the Ld. Counsel has submitted a valuation report prepared by Sh. B.K. Singhal, Regd. Valuer determining the cost of property at Rs.9,07,000/- I.T.A. No. 592/Asr/2019 3 as on 01.04.1981. It is observed that during the assessment proceedings on 19.12.2018, the assessee filed the copy of this valuation report. The assessing officer considered the valuation report and it was noticed that the assessee had taken very high rates of land and construction which is prima facie not fair and reasonable for basis of the fair market value taken as on 01.04.1981 of the property sold. The valuation report had not mentioned details of plinth area, height of the building, map of building. Type of RCC Structure etc. The said valuation report is mere estimation of cost and had not provided any credible evidence in support thereof. Hence the report could not be a reasonable basis for determination of the fair market value of the property sold. It is observed that as per the valuation report of the Registered valuer, Dimensioned site plan and plans and elevations of all structures on the land and lay out plan (Sr. No.21 & 21) is attached to the report. However, no such attachment were found with the valuation Report. The basis of rates adopted by the Regd. Valuer is not from the same area i.e. Mohalla Krishna Nagar. Basti Gujan, Jalandhar. The details of construction are not known. Since, the property was sold by assessee on 23.04.2010, it is not mentioned in the valuation report whether the structure constructed by the assessee in 1989 was intact or modified. No details with respect to construction have been brought on record. The Regd. valuer without any site plan of the actual constructions has prepared a valuation report in a summary manner which cannot be the basis of the cost of construction, though circle rate of the property for stamp duty purposes was Rs.80,00,000/ the actual registry was done only for Rs.20,00,000/- which is an indication of poor qualify of structure and low value of land. In view of the above facts, rejection of valuation report by the assessing officer is upheld. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. The ld. Counsel filed a written submission on dated 28.02.2022 and relied upon the judgments in the case of DCIT-10(3)/Mumbai vs. Bombay Oxygen I.T.A. No. 592/Asr/2019 4 Corporation Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 88 (Mumbai-Trib.). The ld Counsel relied on the order of Govindaraju vs. ITO Ward 8-(2) Bangalore 377 ITR 243 (Kar), in another case Dilpreet Singh vs. ITO (Chd.-Trib.) in ITA No.301/Chd/2017 dated 01.04.2019, in the case of Smt. Mina Deogun vs. ITO, Ward 29(4), Kolkata (2008) 19 SOT 183 (Kol) in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Vidhi Agarwal (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 306 (Alld.). 6. We heard the rival submission and consider the documents available on record. The assessee determined the fair market value on 01.04.1981 related to the property which was purchased earlier. The cost of property which was purchased on 01.01.1979 has not the same value on 01.04.1981. For calculation of index cost the base value is calculated on 01.01.1981. The value property should be on value dated 01/01/1981. The assessee calculated the cost of acquisition as valued by registered valuer. But the ld. AO calculated the cost of acquisition on basis of the value of property which was acquired on 01.01.1979. Even both the revenue authorities had not referred the valuation before the DVO for calculation of the proper valuation on 01.04.1981. The ld CIT(A) found some lacuna in the valuation report. But the appellate authority is not the competent authority for valuation of property. Considering the judgments of the different judicial forums, as mentioned above, the ratio is in favour of the assessee. So it is directed the assessing authority considered the valuation of the registered valuer submitted by the assessee I.T.A. No. 592/Asr/2019 5 recalculate the capital gain either by considering sale consideration as per the report of the registered value or by ascertaining value of the property by way of referring to the DVO and to take the cost of acquisition of the property as per cost of indexation by taking base year 1981. We consider it is a fit case to remand back to the AO for determining the capital gains. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with the direction to re-adjudicate the appeal afresh on merit and decide it after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the AO. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order