Yogesh Harilal Suratwala, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1034/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9480 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Business income; Additional evidence; Date of conversion; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE , , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY , JM . / I TA NO. 1034 /PUN/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 YOGESH HARILAL SURATWALA, FLAT NO.402, PARSHWA APARTMENT, SUJAY GARDEN, 12, MUKUNDNAGAR, PUNE - 411037. PAN : ADXPS3923L ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER , TECH - III, PUNE / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI P.S NAIK / DATE OF HEARING : 05.04.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.05.2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - III , PUNE DATED 24.02.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS O F THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD ARE: T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS 2 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ON 04.02.2010 DECLARING RS. 74,84,070/ - AS HIS INCOME. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS, ACCORDINGLY, FIRST NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.08.2010. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAD DECLARED I NCOME FROM BUSINESS , INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AGRICULTURAL INCOME, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO - OWNERS WERE HOL DING LAND AT PISOLI AS CAPITAL A SSET. BEFORE TRANSFERRING THE LAND TO M/S TRICON BUILDERS, THE LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO BUSINESS ASSET. THE ASSESSEE HAD 24.26% SHARE IN THE SAID LAND. THE ENTIRE LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS. 5,01,30,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE DECLAR ED HIS SHARE ON TRANSFER OF L AND AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 1,21,61,538/ - . AGAINST THE CAPITAL GA IN EARNED, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.50 LAKHS U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED NET CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 68,72,412/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, RS. 68,72,412/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED READY RECKONER RATE FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. AFTER EXAMINING THE AGREEMENT OF SALE OF LAND , THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO JOINT VENTURE WITH M/S TRICON BUILDERS . AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE A SSESSEES ALONG WITH OTHER CO - OWNERS WERE TO JOINTLY RECEIVE 34% SHARE OF THE GROSS SALE S PROCEEDS . THE REMAINING 66% WAS TO BE TAKEN BY M/S TRICON BUILDERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND AS RS. 10,63,370/ - AND ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON THE SAID AMOUNT. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,08,09,042/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCE . FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING INCO ME FROM SALE OF LAND ADOPTED MARKET VALUE AS REQUIRED FOR STAMP VALUATION 3 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PURPOSE AS FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR DETERMINING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN , AS WELL AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 , THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING MARKET VALUE AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MODIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY CHANGING HEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TO INCOME FROM BUSINESS . NOW , THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS IN APPEAL . THE LD. AR STATED AT THE B AR THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUNDS NO. 2,3,4,6 AND 7. THUS , THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS FOR ADJUDICATION IN APPEAL ARE 1 AND 5. THE SAME READS EFFECTIVE GROUNDS FOR ADJUDICATION IN APPEAL ARE 1 AND 5. THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,21,61,538/ -- , AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,52,495/ - SHOULD BE TAXED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,08,09,042/ - SHOULD BE TAXED AS A BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE CL AIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F AT RS. 10,63,370/ - AS AGAINST RS. 50,00, 000/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE CO - OWNER OF LAND SITUATED AT PISOLI. ORIGINALLY, THE LAND WAS JOINTLY PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF FATHER AND MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE . AFTER THE DEMISE OF ASSESSEES FATHER, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER ACQUIRED THE SHARE OF THEIR FATHER IN LAND IN EQUAL RATIO BY WAY OF REGISTERED WILL . THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO - OWNERS WERE HOLDING THE 4 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 LAND AS CAPITAL ASSET. ALL THE OWNERS OF THE LAND I.E THE ASSESSEE, HIS BROTHER AND HIS MOTHER DECIDED TO SELL THE LAND TO M/S TRICON BUILDERS TO BE EXPLOITED COMMERCIALLY. T HE CAPITAL ASSET WAS CONVERTED TO BUSINESS ASSET. THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY TH E CO - OWNER S ON 13.08.08. THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO - OWNERS JOINTLY RECEIVE D 34% SHARE FROM THE GROSS CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY M/S TRICON BUILDER S FROM SALE OF FLAT S . THE ASSESSE E WAS HAVING 24.65% SHARE OF LAND. WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND , THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED READY RECKONER RATE SPECIFIED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE AS FAIR MARKET VALUE . WHEREAS , DURING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP D UTY PURPOSE AS FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION OF LAND FROM CAPITAL ASSET TO STOCK IN TRADE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT MARKET R ATE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS FAIR MARKET VALUE . IN SUBMITTED THAT MARKET R ATE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS FAIR MARKET VALUE . IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KRISHNA BAJAJ V/S. ACIT REPORTED AS 267 CTR 172. THE LD. AR CONTENTED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE MADE REFERENCE TO DVO U/S 50C( 2 )(A) OF THE ACT FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE NO EFFO RT TO DETERMINE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY MAKING ENQUIRIES AND ASCERTAINING PREVALENT MARKET VALUE OF LAND. 5.1 THE LD. AR HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMITTING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS A S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S AT 5 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO. 53 TO 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ARE IN THE FORM OF SALE DEED S OF THE LAND S IN THE VICINITY. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE BEING FILED TO SHOW THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT . THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER MAY K INDLY BE DIRECTED TO RE - EXAMINE SALE DEED S OF THE LAND SITUATED IN THAT AREA AND RE - DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND AND APPLY THE SAME FO R COMPUTING BUSINESS INCOME AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI P.S. NAIK REPRESEN TING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) . THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DETERMINED LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN AND SURPLUS ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND BY ADOPTING MARKET VALUE SHOWN BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE . THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE SAMPLE SALE DEEDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF SUBSEQUENT DATE I.E AFTER THE DATE OF SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S TRICON BUILDERS , T HEREFORE, NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON SUCH SALE DEEDS. THE LD. DR DEFENDING THE ACTION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. CONTROVERTING, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y LD. DR, THE LD AR CONTENDED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PRAPANN SHARMA V/S. CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2314 /2007 DECIDED ON 24.11.2016 HAS HELD THAT COMPARABLE SALE DEED S OF SUBSEQUENT DATE CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, IF OTHERWISE , THE SALE DEEDS ARE GENUINE. THE LD. AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS READY TO CONSIDER SALE DEED S OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY 6 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 EXECUTED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE DEED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OT HER CO - OWNERS IN FAVOUR OF M/S TRICON BUILDERS. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS AND DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUBMISSIONS. THE LIMITED ISSUE AGITATED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL IS METHOD OF DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. INITIALLY, THE LAND WAS HELD AS CAPITAL ASSET . SUBSEQUEN TLY, THE LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO STOCK IN TRADE AND WAS SOLD TO M/S TRICON BUILDERS. ON CONVERSION OF LAND FROM CAPITAL ASSET TO STOCK IN TRADE, FOR DETERMINING LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED READY RECKONER RATE AS FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE ASSE SSEE ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F AMOUNTING TO RS. 50 LAKHS ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN . DURING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS APPLIED BY REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DETERMINED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS RS. 10,63,370/ - . THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS DISCLO SED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E RS.1,18,72,412/ - AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E RS. 10, 63,370 / - WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CHANGED THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TO BUSINESS INCOME . NOW, BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HOLDING PART OF SALES PROCEEDS AS BUSINESS INCOME. AS HAS BEEN STATED EARLIER THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY LD. AR BEFORE TRIBUNAL IS DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND SOLD. THE ASSESSEE 7 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 HAS FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS MUCH HIGHER THEN THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN VICINITY DURING THAT TIME. LAND IN VICINITY DURING THAT TIME. 9 . THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KRISHNA BAJAJ V/S. ACIT HAS HELD THAT WHIL E DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE UNDER THE ACT, NEITHER GUIDELINE VALUE PRESCRIBED FOR PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION UNDER KARNATAKA STAMP ACT AND INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT NOR NET WEALTH VALUE ARRIVED AT UNDER PROV ISIONS OF WEALTH TAX ACT, CAN BE A GUIDING FACTOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RATHER THAN ESTIMATING VALU ATION BY SEEKING PARTICULARS FROM THE OFFICERS OF REGISTRAR , COULD REFER THE MATTER TO VALUATION OFFICER. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: 5. WHEN ONCE UNDER THE ACT, FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS BEEN DEFINED, SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THE CAPITAL ASSET TO CALCULATE THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX, THE QUESTION OF RELYING ON THE DEFINITION UNDER ANY OTHER ENACTMENT TAX, THE QUESTION OF RELYING ON THE DEFINITION UNDER ANY OTHER ENACTMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. A READING OF THE AFORESAID DEFINITION CLAUSE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE IS THE PRICE THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET WOULD ORDINARILY FETCH ON SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET ON THE RELEVANT DATE. THEREFORE, FOR LEVYING CAPITAL GAM TAX UNDER THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUT ING THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, IS THE PRICE THE PROPERTY WOULD FETCH ON SALE IN THE OPEN MARKET ON THE RELEVANT DATE. THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DISCLOSES THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS ON 1 . 4.1981 IN RESPECT OF THE P R OPERTY IN DISPUTE WOULD WORK OUT TO RS.110/ - PER SQ.FT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX I N RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BY HER SHOWS THE PROPERTY WAS VALUED AT RS.2,25,000/ - AS ON 31 . 3.1992 I .E., THE NET WEALTH ON WHICH THE RS.2,25,000/ - AS ON 31 . 3.1992 I .E., THE NET WEALTH ON WHICH THE WEALTH TAX WAS PAYABLE. THE WEALTH TAX ACT PROVIDES A MECHANISM, UNDER WHICH THE PROPERTY IS VALUED AND NET WEALTH DETERMINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF WEALTH TAX. I T IS NOT A FAIR MARKET VALUE. THEREFORE, IN DETERMINING THE LAIR MARKET VA LUE UNDER THE ACT, NEITHER THE GUIDELINE VALUE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION UNDER THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT AND THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT NOR THE NET WEALTH VALUE ARRIVED AT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, CANNOT BE THE GUIDING FACTOR . THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS CERTAINLY FAR MORE THAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE. SIMILARLY, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE GUIDELINE VALUE. SIMILARLY, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WEALTH TAX, IS ALSO FAR MORE THAN THE VALUE FOR WHICH 8 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 IT IS ASSESSED UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING ON THOSE TWO INADMISSIBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO ARRIVE AT A FAIR MARKET VALUE. 6. THE GRIEVANCE IS THAT, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO 6. THE GRIEVANCE IS THAT, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE A VALUATION REPORT FROM A DULY QUALIFIED VALUATOR, SHE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE VALUATION REPORT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VALUATION. BUT MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRODUCED , NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN. EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PRODUCTION OF SUCH R EPORT, A DUTY WAS CAST ON THE AUTHORITIES TO ASSESS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE INDEPENDENT OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. INSTEAD OF C ALLING FOR PARTICULARS FROM THE SUB - REGISTRAR'S OFFICE ABOUT THE GUIDELINE VALUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF COULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO A VALUATOR TO GET THE VALUATION DONE UNDER SECTION 53 - A OF THE ACT, WHICH HE HAS NOT RESORTED TO . THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED A VALUATION MEMO. IT IS IN THIS RESORTED TO . THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED A VALUATION MEMO. IT IS IN THIS MEMO, SHE HAS GIVEN THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,25,000 / - AS ON 31 . 3.1992 UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT. AS STAGED EARLIER, THAT CANNOT BE THE BASIS. 10 . IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VALUE BY TAKING MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES FOR STAMP DUTY VALUATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SOUGHT ANY VALUATION REP ORT FROM DVO. THE PROVISIONS OF OFFICER HAS NOT SOUGHT ANY VALUATION REP ORT FROM DVO. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT U NAMBIGUOUSLY STATES THAT WHERE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED FOR STAMP VALUATION/REGISTRATION PURPOSE EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALU ATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. 1 1 . TH US, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. KRISHNA BAJAJ V/S. ACIT (SUPRA) , WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE - NOVO DETERMINATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER SEEKING VALUATION REPORT FROM DVO. T HE GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10 1 2 . AS FAR AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 5 RELATING TO BENEFIT U /S 54F OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED , THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT MADE. HOWEVER, THE SAME SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DETERMINED AFTER FRESH COMPUTATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER . T HE GROUND N O.5 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 1 3 . THE GROUND NO S . 2,3,4,6 AND 7 ARE NOT PRESSED . THUS, IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY LD. AR THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON FRIDAY , THE 26 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 26 TH MAY , 2017 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A) - III, PUNE 4. THE CIT - III, PUNE. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE 10 ITA NO. 1034/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10