A.C.I.T. And D.C.I.T. vs Shri Raghunath B. Taware on 31 May, 2007
6. It is submitted by the Ld. A.R. before us that the decision of the
A.O. is based on the information received form sub-registrar office being
4 I.T.A.No04./Ahd/2012
sale deed executed on 06.02.1981 of the land being situated at Goyapati
Pratap Nagar, Baroda. It is also submitted that the assessee's land is
situated near Lalbaug Railway Crossing Palace Road, Vadodara and both
these areas are far away from each other. He further submitted that
registered valuer's report has been furnished before the authorities below
and the same is available on pages 14-18 of the paper book and from the
same, it can be seen that the registered valuer has applied average price of
4 land transactions instead of applying the rates of one land as has been
done by the A.O. and the said land is far away. It is also submitted that
the lands referred to by the registered valuer are located near to the
assessee's land whereas the land referred to by the A.O. is located far
away from the assessee's land. Reliance was placed on the judgement of
Hon'ble H.P. High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Raghunath Jha
as reported in 216 CTR 248 wherein, it was held that if the A.O. does not
agree with the report regarding the valuer relied upon by the assessee,
rejection of such valuer's report without making reference to the
valuation order is invalid and the report of registered valuer shall be
accepted. Regarding the 2nd aspect i.e. regarding reduction to the extent
of 10% and 25% from the land size of the assessee, it is submitted that
such reduction done by Ld. CIT(A) is without any basis. He also
submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in taking the assessee's
share of cost @ 12.65% of the total cost whereas sale consideration has
been apportioned to the assessee to the extent of 18.1% of the total sale
consideration.