Mrs. Lata S. Pinge Prasad, 4th Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055 Vs. ACIT Circle 19(2), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Mrs. Lata S. Pinge Prasad, 4th Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055 Vs. ACIT Circle 19(2), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Chartered Accountant CA ICAI Chartered Accountants CA ICAI CAinINDIA ICAI Announcements Accounting Standards CA News ICAI Students ICAI Members Case Laws CPT IPCC Final ICAI Course CA Course ICAI Forum CA Question Papers ICAI Study Material

« From the Courts »

Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate
Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court


« Honda Motorcycle & Scooters India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.01,...	DCIT 3(2), R.No. 674, 6th floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road,... »
Mrs. Lata S. Pinge Prasad, 4th Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055 Vs. ACIT Circle 19(2), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012

April, 10th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH "A", MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4398/M/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mrs. Lata S. Pinge Vs. ACIT Circle 19(2), Prasad, 4th Road, Piramal Chambers, Santacruz (East), Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 055 Mumbai 400 012 PAN: AAFPP 0792B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiro Rai, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Asghar Zain, D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.01.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2015 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] dated 04.04.2012 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The sole issue taken in this appeal is relating to the determination of fair market value as on 01.04.1981, of the property sold by the assessee during the year under consideration, for the purpose of computing the taxable capital gains. 3. The assessee during the year sold a flat for a consideration of Rs.40 lakhs. The assessee took the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.81 at Rs.3,39,840/- and calculated the index cost of acquisition at Rs.18,72,518/- ITA No.4398/M/2012 2 Mrs. Lata S. Pinge and returned the long term capital gains at Rs.21,27,482/-. The AO (hereinafter referred to as the AO), however, was of the view that the value adopted by the assessee at Rs.3,39,840/- was on higher side. He therefore referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Departmental Valuer ascertained the value of the property as on 01.04.81 at Rs.2,12,400/-. The AO, therefore, adopted the said value and computed the long term capital gains accordingly at Rs.28,29,676/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, held that the action of the AO in referring the matter to the Valuation Officer was justified and that the AO has rightly adopted the value as determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has contended that firstly the action of the AO in referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer was wrong and not justified as the fair market value adopted by the assessee was more than that has been adopted by the Departmental Valuation Officer. Further, that the value adopted by the Departmental Valuation Officer is quite lower than that has been determined by the Registered Valuer appointed by the assessee, which is at Rs.3.54 lakhs. 6. So far as the contention of the assessee that the AO was not justified in referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer is concerned, we do not find any force in the said contention, if the AO was of the view that the value adopted by the assessee was not correct having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, he may refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The provisions of the statute cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to make it redundant. We therefore do not find ITA No.4398/M/2012 3 Mrs. Lata S. Pinge any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the AO was justified in referring the matter to the . 7. So far as the issue relating to the value adopted by the is concerned, we may observe that the work of determining the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.81 is based purely on estimation basis. The assessee has estimated the same at Rs.3.39 lakhs, whereas the Departmental Valuation Officer has estimated the same at Rs.2.12 lakhs and the same as per the Registered Valuer appointed by the assessee has been estimated at Rs.3.54 lakhs. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stressed that the assessee had adopted the said value at Rs.3.39 lakhs as per the stamp duty ready recknor. Taking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the determination of the value of the property is an estimate work only, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be well served, if the AO is directed to adopt the value somewhere between the value estimated by the assessee and the Registered Valuer on the one hand and the Departmental Valuation Officer on the other hand which we direct to adopt at Rs.3 lakhs. The AO is accordingly directed to compute the capital gains by adopting the fair market value of the property in question at Rs.3 lakhs. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.04.2015. Sd/- Sd/- (R.C. Sharma) (Sanjay Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 08.04.2015. * Kishore, Sr. P.S. ITA No.4398/M/2012 4 Mrs. Lata S. Pinge Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// [ By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.