|
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2824 (Kol-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 48
Where AO adopted fair market value of property sold by assessee as on 01-4-1981 on the basis of valuation made by DVO, however, copy of the DVO's valuation report, was never given to the assessee and, even the objections raised by the assessee before CIT(A) in respect of the valuation determined by the DVO, were not properly considered by him, accordingly, the matter was remanded to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.
|
Capital gains - FMV of property as on 01-4-1981 - AO adopted FMV on basis of valuation made by DVO - DVO's valuation report being not given to assessee---Objections raised by assessee being not considered properly
Assessee sold an immovable property during relevant year under consideration. He claimed fair market value of the property as on 1-4-1981 on the basis of actual sale instance of comparable property but the same was not accepted by AO. AO adopted the fair market value of the property as on 01-4-1981 on the basis of valuation made by DVO and accordingly, computed long-term capital gains. Assessee contended that copy of the DVO's valuation report was never given to him by the AO. He further contended that even the objections raised by him before CIT (A) in respect of the valuation determined by the DVO, were not properly considered by him. Held: The only dispute involved in assessee's case relates to determination of indexed cost of acquisition of property sold by the assessee during the year under consideration. Even though AO adopted fair market value of the property as on 01-4-1981 on the basis of the valuation made by DVO, however, copy of the DVO's valuation report, was never given by the AO to the assessee. Further, even the objections raised by the assessee before CIT (A) in respect of the valuation determined by the DVO were not properly considered by him. Further, sale instances relied upon by the assessee to justify the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 taken by him, were not properly appreciated either by the AO or by the CIT (A). Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT |