Monday, April 27, 2015

CIT(A) should adopt market rates in valuers directory/stamp duty reckoner in absence of sale instances in same area


Where no sale instances were available of same area, Fair Market Value of land could be determined by relying upon rate mentioned in Indian Valuers Directory and Reference Book and Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner and by adopting annual rate of appreciation method

Facts


a)The assessee-company sold its factory land. The assessee reported fair market value (FMV) of land as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 14.12 crore on the basis of report of a registered valuer and, accordingly, it computed the capital gains;

b)As no instances of sale of similar property in same area were available, registered valuer determined the value of property by presuming the value it would fetch if residential flats were constructed and sold on that land in 1981, utilising the maximum Floors Space Index (FSI);

c)The Assessing Officer (AO) referred matter to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) who determined the value of land, taking into account rate of land in undeveloped industrial area as on 1-4-1981 as per Indian Valuers Dictionary and Reference Book (IVDRB), at Rs. 1.7 crore;

d)The Commissioner (Appeals)rejected the valuation made by registered valueras he determined the value of land on the basis of some imaginary situations. He also did not agree with the DVO’s valuation as land was situated in a developed industrial area;

e)The CIT(A) taking into account the rate quoted in IVDRB and Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner and by adopting annual rate of appreciation method worked out FMV at Rs. 2.78 crore;

f)Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held in favour of revenue as under:

1)It is true that for valuation purposes some kind of assumption has to be taken especially if valuation is to be done in the year 2001 for the year 1981. But, assumption should have some basis. In the instant case, the very base adopted by the valuer was totally improper as concept of FSI was not prevalent in the year 1981;

2)The value determined by DVO was also improper as land was situated in developed industrial area and not in under-developed industrial area;

3)CIT(A) determined the value of property by referring to IVDRB and stamp duty Ready Reckoner and by adopting annual rate of appreciation method. So, the method adopted by him was a better 'guess work' than the guess work done by the registered valuer. His estimation was also very near to the valuation made by the DVO;

4)Therefore, FMV adopted by the CIT(A) was more reasonable as compared to the FMV quoted by the registered valuer- PFIZER LTD. V. DCIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 260 (Mumbai - Trib.)
Post a Comment