ITO, Jaipur V. RAVI TIWARI, Jaipur

ITA 986/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 98623114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: G G MUNDRA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 54; 154

Judgement Text

1 ITA 986-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ITA NO. 986/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI RAVI TIWARI, WARD 2(4), D-115, NIRMAN NAGAR, JAIPUR. AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.G. MUNDRA ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 08/07/2011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 42,89,233/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERN CAPITAL GAIN BY REJECTIN G THE FMV ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AS ON 1.4.1981 INCLUSIVE OF RS. 9,45,000/- C LAIMED TO BE PAID TO THE TENANTS. IN SECOND GROUND THE DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING IN DELETI NG THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSFER EXPENSES OF RS. 9,45,000/-. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SOLD PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CO-OWNERS AND SALE PROCEEDS WERE DIVID ED AMONGST THEM. SMT. MADHU GOPAL RECEIVED FIXED SHARE OF RS. 15 LACS AND BALAN CE WAS SHARED EQUALLY BY 5 CO-OWNERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981 AT 2 RS.51,58,000/- WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY VALUATION REPO RT OF A REGISTERED VALUER. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS.3. 15 CR. VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 30.8.85. THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES VALUED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF SALE AT RS.3,28,54,359/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE VALUE SO DETERMINED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AND COMPUTED CAPITAL GAIN. AS ON 1.4.81 THE VAL UE TAKEN WAS RS. 51,58,000/- BY TAKING INDEX COST OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, NOTIFI ED AT 497 AND CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 11,88,901/- WAS SHOWN. ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR RS. 11,99,200/-, EXEMPTION U/S 54 WAS CLAIMED RESULTING INTO NIL CAPITAL GAIN. 4. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF R S.9,45,000/- INCURRED BY ASSESSEE FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND DID NOT ACCEP T THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. THE AO HIMSELF VALUED THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.81 AT RS.8,24,820/-. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND COLLECTING INFORMATION ABOU T THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY IN THE SAME AREA OF STATION ROAD IN THE NEAREST PERIOD OF 1.4.8 1 FROM THE OFFICE OF DIG (REGISTRATION) AND COLLECTOR (STAMPS) CIRCLE-IL, JAIPUR, THE AO RE -WORKED OUT CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.54,88,433/-. AFTER ALLOWING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U /S 54, THE AO DETERMINED THE TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.42,89,233/-. THE AO ALLOWED INDE X COST OF ACQUISITION BY TAKING COST INFLATION INDEX 497 NOTIFIED FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 200 5-06 AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48. HOWEVER, LATER ON THE AO PASSED AN ORDER U/S 154 DA TED 30.1.2009 AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLD THE PROPERTY ON DEATH OF HIS FATHER I N 1993-94 AND, THEREFORE, INDEXING IS TO BE ALLOWED TAKING THE BASE INDEX OF 1993-94 AND NOT ON 1.4.81 AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO THUS ADO PTED INDEXING FACTOR 497/244 AS 3 AGAINST 497/100 WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO AN ENHANCEM ENT OF CAPITAL GAIN TO RS.47,50,998/- AS AGAINST RS.42,89,233/- DETERMINED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. 5. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EXERCISING OPTION U/S 55(2)(B)(II) O F I. T. ACT, 1961 I.E. COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IS TO BE TAKEN AT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981. THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981 OBTAINED VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER SHRI RAVI VINDAL WHO VA LUED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SAID PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-81 AT RS. 51,58,000/-. THE COPY OF SAID VALUATION REPORT WAS FILED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN S UBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR IN COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THE AO HAS NOT RELIED/ REJECTED THE SAID VALUATION AND REJECTED THE SAME. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO COUL D NOT REJECT THE VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER FOR DECIDING THE QUESTION OF VALU ATION OF HIS OWN. THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO. 96 DATED 25-11-72 REPORTED AT (1973) 91 ITR ST 1 (PHOTO COPY SUBMITTED) WHILE EXPLAINING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A HELD IN THE SA ID CIRCULAR AS UNDER: - UNDER THE NEW PROVISION, AS INCOME-TAX OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER IN A CA SE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT THE ASSETS VALUED BY A REGISTERED VALUER AND THE IN COME TAX OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT THE VALUE OF ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUE R (I.E. A PERSON REGISTERED AS A VALUER UNDER SECTION 34AB OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT) IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET. OTHER CASES IN WHICH A REFERENC E MAY BE MADE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WOULD BE WHERE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSET A S CLAIMED BY MORE THAN 15% OF THE VALUE CLAIMED OR BY MORE THAN RS. 25,000, WHICH EVER IS LESS, OR WHERE HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET AND OTHER RELEVAN T CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY TO DO SO. FT WILL BE SEEN THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET BY ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-1-1954, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS CLAIMED BY HIM MAY BE HIGHER THAN ITS ACTUAL FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 55A(A) AND (B)(I) WILL, THEREFORE, NOT APPLY IN SUCH A CASE. I T WILL, HOWEVER, BE OPEN TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUA TION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 55A (A) (B) (II). 4 IN CASES COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSES (A) A ND (B) (I) OF SECTION 55A, IT WILL BE INCUMBENT ON THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO R EFER THE VALUATION OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND IT WILL NOT B E OPEN TO HIM TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF VALUATION ON HIS OWN. (RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM PARA 26 & 27 OF SAID CIRCULAR) 5.1. IN VIEW OF ABOVE POSITION OF LAW THE AO IS WRO NG IN NOT RELYING/REJECTING THE VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER AND DECIDING THE QUESTION OF VALUATION AT HIS OWN AND THEREBY SUBSTITUTING F.M.V. OF PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-8 1 AT RS. 8,24,820/- INSTEAD OF F.M.V. OF PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-81 AT RS. 51,58,000/- DETERMI NED BY REGISTERED VALUATION ELABORATELY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF VALUATION. THE ABOVE POSITION OF LAW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY YOUR HONOUR IN CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR DUGGAR & SONS (HUF) (APPEAL NO. 516/08-09 ORDER DATED 03-03-2009) AND THE SAID ORDE R OF YOUR HONOUR HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (IT A NO. 428/JP/2009 ORDER DATED 18- 12-2009). THE PHOTOCOPIES OF ORDERS ARE SUBMITTED H EREWITH. 5.2. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CA SE CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 55A COULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE PRIMARY CONDITION FOR THE APPLICA TION OF THE CLAUSE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE OF OPINION THAT THE VALUE DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER COULD NOT HAVE INVOKED THIS CLAUSE BECAUSE HE WAS OF OPINION THAT THE VALUE DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1-4-1981 WAS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET. C LAUSE (B) OF SECTION 55A WILL NOT APPLY TO A CASE WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE BASIS OF AN ESTIMATE MADE BY REGISTERED VALUER AND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED THE MATER OF V ALUATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER SINCE 5 (A) THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPORTED BY AN ESTIMATE OF THE REGISTERED VALUER, AND (B) THE VALUE SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E SITUATION WAS THUS, NEITHER COVERED BY CLAUSE (A) NOR BY CLAUSE (B) AND BOTH THE SUB-CL AUSES OF CLAUSE (B) ARE GOVERNED BY THE OVERRIDING EXPRESSION IN ANY OTHER CASE APPEARING IN THE BEGINNING OF THE CLAUSE. THE SAID EXPRESSION REFERS TO A CASE WHERE THE VALUE DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER OR WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. BOTH THESE CONDITIONS WERE NOT PRESENT IN THE INSTANT CA SE AND NO REFERENCE COULD HAS BEEN MADE TO V.0. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND I N LAW TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE LEGAL VIEW IS SUPPORTED WITH THE JUDGEMENT IN CASE OF SMT. URMILA BAWA VS. ACIT (200 7) 11 SOT 661 (DE1H) (P.R. PAGE 22 - 28). 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON MERITS ALSO THE ORDER OF AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD EVIDENCED B Y PURCHASE DEED OF PROPERTY AND FROM KEY PLAN AND SITE PLAN OF PROPERTY THAT PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT MAIN STATION ROAD HARDLY ABOUT 50 METRES FROM CIRCLE OF JAIPUR RAILWAY STATI ON WHICH IS EXISTING MORE THAN 100 YEARS BACK. THE SURROUNDING AREA OF RAILWAY STATION AND STATION ROAD IS COMMERCIAL HUB OF JAIPUR AND PROPERTIES SITUATED THEREON ARE MAINL Y USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ADJACENT THE OFFICE OF IRRIGATI ON DEPARTMENT AND SADAR POLICE STATION & SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RURAL. IN THE AREA MANY HOTELS, SHOWROOMS, SHOPS & COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT SITUATES FROM LAST SEVERAL YEARS. THE DOCUMENTS OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND ANALYSIS THEREFROM ALREADY SUBMITTED E VIDENCES THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS 6 BEEN TRANSFERRED IN YEAR WAS ALWAYS A COMMERCIAL PR OPERTY. IN VIEW OF THIS AO IS WRONG IN ASSUMING THE PLOT OF LAND OF PROPERTY AS THAT OF RESIDENTIAL. THE REGISTERED VALUER LOOKING TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY AND SIZE OF LAND AR EA APPLIED BELTING METHOD OF VALUATION DIVIDING THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TEN BELTS TAKING FR ONT PORTION OF LAND FACING MAIN ROAD AS OF PRIME COMMERCIAL VALUE AND THE BACKWARD BELTS OF PL OT OF LAND WITH LOWER VALUES AND ARRIVED AT AVERAGE VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 1793/- PER SQ.YDS. THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY IN VALUATION REPORT IS THUS BY GIVING COMPLETE ANALYTI CAL DETAILS SUPPORTED WITH COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE AND BASED ON PRINCIPALS OF VALUATION WHICH DESERVES TO BE RELIED. 7. THE A.O. ON THE CONTRARY EVEN MISTOOK THE CORREC T LOCATION OF PROPERTY DESPITE CLEAR DEPICTION OF PROPERTY ON KEY PLAN AND SITE PL AN FILED BEFORE HIM IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO ON PAGE 3 LINE 13-14 STATES T HAT SAID TRANSACTION FOR THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN BANI PARK, JAIPUR WHILE ON PAG E 9 LINE 43, PAGE 10 LINE 1 2 AO STATES THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY SI TUATED IN THE NEARBY LOCALITY OF STATION ROAD AND NOT AT THE STATION ROAD AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE A.O. TRIED TO COMPARE THE PROPERTY OF ASSESS EE AT MAIN STATION ROAD WITH SOME PROPERTIES DETAILS OF WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY OBT AINED FROM THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY AND GIVEN ON SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REPRODUCED ON PAGE 4 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE FAR AWAY FROM T HE PROPERTY OF ASSESSEE AND SITUATES IN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT LOCATION AND AREA AS EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY REPRODUCED ON PAGE 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ALLEGATION THAT D ETAILS OBTAINED FROM REGISTERING AUTHORITY FOR VALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ARE CLOSE TO ONE BOUNDARY OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS ALSO ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON FACTS. THE AO WITHOUT LOOKING TO THE PROPERTY MADE VARIOUS PRESUMPTIONS AND RELIED ON TAILORED REPORT OF INSPECTOR WHICH IS WRONG AND 7 AGAINST LAW. THE A.O. GAVE NO BASIS TO ADOPT THE LA ND RATE OF RS. 194/- PER SQ. YD. FOR THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. IT IS THUS SUBMITTED THAT F.M.V. OF PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981 VALUED BY A.O. IS APPARENTLY WRONG AND AGAINST PRINCIPLES OF VALUATION OF PROPERTY AND SO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. THE FMV AS ON 1-4-81 DECLARED BY ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED . 9. REGARDING CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS. 9,45,000/- BE ING EXPENSES WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE ABOVE SUM TO TENANTS FOR VACATING THE PROPERTY WHIC H WAS AGREED TO SOLD WITH VACANT POSSESSION. THE PHOTO COPIES OF RECEIPTS OBTAINED F ROM TENANTS. THE EXPENDITURE WAS THUS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER AS WITHOUT INCURRING SAID EXPENDITURE THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ITSELF COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED. THE LEGAL VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD IN CASE OF CIT VS SHAKUNTALA RAJESWAR (1986) 160 ITR 840 (DEL) AND IN CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS MADHUR I TEKCHANDANY (2005) 93 ITD 65. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED, THE DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENT OF SAID EXPEN SES WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASONING AND ALSO MADE NO ENQUIRIES. IT IS THEREFO RE PRAYED THAT THE CLAIMED EXPENSES MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT (A) GAVE FOLLOWING FINDING IN RESPECT TO BOTH THE I SSUES RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT :- CONTENTION OF THE AR IS CONSIDERED. ACTION OF THE A0 OF MAKING VALUATION OF THE ASSET WITHOUT MAKING ANY REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION CELL IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.96 DATED 25.11.72 REPORTED AT (1973) 91 ITR ST. 1. THE CIRCULAR CLARIFIES THAT THE NEW SECTION 55A WAS INSERTED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT ENABLING THE A0 TO R EFER THE VALUATION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET TO THE V.0. WITH A VIEW TO ASCERT AIN THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH ASSETS. UNDER SECTION 55A IT WILL BE INCUMBENT ON THE A0 TO REFER 8 VALUATION OF AN ASSETS IN QUESTION TO THE V.0. AND IT WILL NOT BE OPENED TO HIM TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF VALUATION ON HIS OWN. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO ON HIS OWN AND WITHOUT MAKI NG REFERENCE TO THE V.0. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE A0 MAY REFER THE VALUATI ON OF ANY CAPITAL ASSETS TO THE V.0. IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT THE ASSETS VALUED BY A REGISTERED VALUER AND THE ITO IS OF THE OPINION THA T THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSETS. IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE OP FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS BY ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.81, THE FAIR MAR KET VALUE AS CLAIMED BY HIM MAY BE HIGHER THAN ITS ACTUAL FAIR MARKET VALUE . THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A(A) AND (B)(I) WILL, THEREFORE, NOT APPL Y IN SUCH CASES. REFERENCE CAN BE MADE ONLY U/S 55A(A)(B)(II). THE A 0, THEREFORE, CANNOT REJECT THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUE R AND DECIDED THE QUESTION OF VALUATION ON HIS OWN. SUBSTITUTION OF FAIR MARKE T VALUE AS ON 1.4.81 AT RS.8,24,820/- INSTEAD OF RS.5 1,58,000/- DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER CANNOT BE UPHELD. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKE N BY HONBLE TRIBUNALS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. M/S RUBALE N. KAZERANI VS. JCIT (2005) 97 TTJ 6 98 (MUM) (TM) 2. LALITA BEN B. KAPADIA VS. ITO (2008) 115 TTJ 93 8 (MUM) 3. ICBI (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. JCIT (2008) 166 TAXM AN 123 (BANG) ON MERIT ALSO THE ACTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE UPHELD . THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS SITUATED ON STATION ROAD WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL AREA. THE AO HAS COMPARED THE PROPERTY WITH OTHER PROPERT IES AWAY FROM PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT AND ARE IN DIFFERENT LOCA TIONS. THE AO HAS NO BASIS FOR ADOPTING VALUE OF RS.194/- PER SQ. YD. TH E APPELLANT HAS GIVEN VALUATION AS DONE BY APPROVED VALUER WHO HAS ADOPTE D BELTING METHOD, A RECOGNIZED METHOD OF VALUATION. THERE APPEARS NO RE ASON TO IGNORE AN APPROVED METHOD OF VALUATION AND ADOPTED AN ESTIMAT ED VALUE. THUS ON LEGALITY AS WELL AS ON MERIT THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE A0 DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 9 THE APPELLANT CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.9,45,000/- WHI CH IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF RECEIPTS AS W ELL AS COPIES OF AGREEMENTS. THE SAME WAS PAID TO THE TENANTS FOR VA CATING THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS LATER ON SOLD. THE EXPENDITURE WAS THUS I N RELATION TO THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE C LAIM WITHOUT ANY REASONING. AS THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES SUPPORTED B Y EVIDENCES THE SAME IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE AO HAS WRONGLY HEL D THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF RS.9,45,000/- AS BROKERAGE AS ONLY RS.45,000/- H AS BEEN PAID AS BROKERAGE AND REMAINING RS.9 LACS WAS PAID TO THE T ENANTS TO VACATE THE PROPERTY. SIMPLY, ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PAYME NT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE BUYER, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS N OT JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED AS PER THE PREVAILING PRACTIC E ONLY AND IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY POSSESSION LETTER DULY SIGNED BY THE T ENANTS AS WELL AS RECEIPTS AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME CAN BE ACCEPTED. THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS.9,45, 000/-. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 11. THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND LD. CIT (A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) IN RESPECT TO BOTH THE I SSUES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AFTER ASCERTAINING THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED FROM REGISTERED VALUER SH OWING THE VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 WHEREAS ON THE OTHER SIDE THE AO WITHOUT REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, HE HIMSELF ADOPTED/ESTIMATED VALUE BY ASSIGNING CERTAI N REASONS. THOSE REASONS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY LD. CIT (A) AND FOUND THAT THE COMPARAB LE INSTANCES GIVEN BY AO ARE NOT 10 CORRECT AS THEY ARE THE EXAMPLE OF PROPERTIES SITUA TED FAR AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE LD . CIT (A) WHICH WERE REITERATED HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. THE LD. D/R COULD NOT PO INT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OR ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) WHICH ARE BASED O N ASSERTION OF THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE. WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A), IN OUR VIEW, A DIFFERENT VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED SOMEWHERE ABOVE IN THI S ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARIFICATION, THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE CONF IRMED IN RESPECT TO BOTH THE ISSUES. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED. 15. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 -07-2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. SHRI RAVI TIWARI, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 986/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.