RAJNIKANT SURAJRAM BACHKANIWALA,VESU vs. ACIIT (OSD), WARD-2(1)(3), SURAT

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR of the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that the assessee was given opportunity by Assistant Valuation Officer before giving his final report in assuming the fair market value as on 01.041981. Further, the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order has considered of the objection of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer being reasonable and justifiable. The Ld. Sr DR for the revenue submits that the assessee is not entitled for any relief.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities. We find that during the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made reference to the valuation officer for determination of fair market value as on 01.04.1981. The Assistant Valuation Officer adopted the valuer asset- based as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs.89/- per square meter. We find that before Assistant Valuation Officer, the assessee filed detailed objection. The objection of assesse was not discussed by AVO in his report. We further find that before Assessing Officer, the assessee again filed detailed written submission to substantiate the report of Government Registered Valuer. The Assessing Officer instead of given any finding on various objection raised by assessee has accepted the rate suggested by Assistant Valuation Officer. We have perused the 7 88/SRT/2020/AY.2015-16/Rajnikant Surajram Bachkaniwala

We have independently examined the report of Registered Valuer as well as report of Assistant Registered Valuer. There is no dispute that property of assessee is situated near Parle Point, Surat which is admittedly a developed commercial area. The Registered Valuer has given several instances along with the date of purchase, wherein in Revenue Survey Nos. 52 and 105, the Registered Valuer has shown sale instances on the basis of registered documents as on 01.12.1978 and 16.10.1989 at Rs.667/- and Rs.897/-. However, in respect of plot admeasuring 90 per square meter in Revenue Survey No. 63/P1 sold on registered with registration no. 8744, the valuer has shown the rate of Rs.2344/ per square meter. However, the registered valuer has suggested Rs.750/- per square meter. Considering the location of the property, we find that the rate adopted by Registered Valuer based on the registered sale deeds with sub-registered office is fair and reasonable. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the rate of land as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs. 750 and compute the long term capital gain/loss accordingly. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.