Case Law Details
Co-owned property cannot be valued at a value different from value accepted in case of another co-owner
The fact that the godown was constructed in F.Y. 1995-96 is not in dispute. The dispute is about the cost of construction. Assessee after considering the cost of acquisition at Rs. 27 lacs had worked out the capital gains which was not acceptable to AO, Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of Assessee has noted that the valuation report of the valuer had also estimated the cost of construction of the godown at Rs. 54 lacs and therefore the Assessee’s share of 1/2 worked out to Rs. 27 lacs and thus he has considered the cost of acquisition of Rs. 27 lacs considered by Assessee to be in order. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material to controvert the finding of ld. CIT(A).
Further, Assessee has submitted that the balance 1/2 share which belonged to his brother and in his assessments, the cost of acquisition of the same godown has been accepted by the Revenue. Before us, no material has been brought on record to show that the valuation of the godown in the case of Assessee’s brother has been challenged in appeal before Tribunal.
We further find that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) has held that the differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making the assessment of same property or while valuing the same property. In view of the aforesaid facts and relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and thus these grounds of Revenue are dismissed.
