MAMTA MARAJAN & ORS Vs. ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are preferred on behalf of the assessed against different orders of Commissioner (Appeals) passed in their respective cases for the assessment year 1998 -99. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Though the assessed raised various grounds of appeal but all grounds relate to the chargeability of capital gain accrued on sale of their immovable property.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell borne out from the record are that during the year under appeal, assessed sold a plot no. 171 pocket 4 and 5 sector 23, Rohini for Rs. 1,82,500. This property was owned by assessed's along with Smt. Sangita Mahajan. Since the individual assessed had 1/4th share in this property it declared capital gain of Rs. 2,500. The assessing officer after making market enquiries referred the case to the valuation officer under section 55A of the Act, and the valuation officer has estimated the fair market value at Rs. 23,29,200 and the individual assessed's 1/4th share came to Rs. 5,82,300 instead of Rs. 1,82,500. The assessing officer asked the assessed to submit objection to the valuation report and the assessed filed approved valuer's report and also an allotment letter of the DDA for an alternative plot to show that the value determined by the valuation officer was not correct. Finding no force in the Explanation of the assessed, the assessing officer recomputed the capital gain on the basis of estimate made by the valuation officer at Rs. 3,92,300.

(3.) AGGRIEVED , the assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with the submission that the assessed has purchased the property in the immediately preceding year and the cost of acquisition was accepted by the revenue. Once the costs of acquisition of the property declared in earlier year was accepted by the revenue, they cannot estimate the market value of the property at an exorbitant rate within a period of 6 months, as no property can fetch such an exorbitant profit on its sale within such a short span. The assessed has also pointed out the various defects in the valuation report and placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. : [1981]131ITR597(SC) . The assessed has also distinguished the fair market value with the full value of consideration of the capital asset and in support of his contention; he has placed reliance upon various judgments. The Commissioner (Appeals) re -examined the issue in detail in the light of various judgments relied upon by the assessed but he did not concur with the contention of the assessed and upheld the order of the assessing officer.