Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
105321514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
22-02-2012
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
08-02-2012
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
04-08-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1053/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ITO, WARD 6(3), V MRS. INDERJIT KAUR, MOHALI. # 470, LPHASE 3B1, MOHALI. PAN: AAJFM-2533P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ATUL MANDHAR DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.2.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CHANDIGARH, DATED 03.05.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PASS ED U/S 250(6) OF THE ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2406270/- MADE BY THE AO BY ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO, WHEREAS THE AO HAS CONSENTED YES IN COLUMN WHETHER INCOME TAX OFFICER WISH TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING OF ITNS-51. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF LEGAL NOTICES AND HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE OBSERVATION OF AO. NO OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE AO BEFORE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INSPITE OF THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE SAME DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR IS DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE LD. 'DR' PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND, FURTHER, CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION REL IED UPON BY THE CIT(A), IN THE CASE OF CHANDNI BHUCHAR (2010) 229 CTR 190 (P&H), IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A PURCHASER. THE PRESEN T ASSESSEE APPELLANT IS SELLER AND, HENCE, THE SAID C ASE IS NOT APPLICABLE, TO THE CASE OF A SELLER, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC LEGAL FICTION CREATED BY THE EXPRESS PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IT WAS, FURTHER, POINTE D OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE VALUATION MAD E BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, BEFORE THE AO AND, HENCE, NO REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DVO U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT. 3 3(I) THE LD. 'AR', ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE C ASE OF CHANDNI BHUCHAR (SUPRA). THE LD. 'AR' WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE VALUATION MADE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, BEFORE THE AO. HE, HOWEVER, STATED THAT THE IMPUGNE D ASSET WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE TENANT WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD TO THE TENANT. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT RECORDS, INCLUDING T HE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE CONTENDING PARTIES. T HE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY STATED ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME, ON 31.10.2006, DECLARIN G INCOME AT RS.3,17,208/- AND CLAIMED LONG TERM LOSS, ON SALE OF PROPERTY, BOOTH NO. 2927-B, SECTOR 22C, CHANDIGARH, TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AT RS.7,18,980/-. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICE D THAT IN RESPECT OF THE SALE DEED, DATED 9.3.2006, T HE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN ADOPTE D BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHANDIGARH AT RS.44 LACS, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.25 LACS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESS EE ADOPTED THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, AT RS.32,18,980/,- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ADOPTED THE INDEX COST OF THE ASSESSMENT, AT RS.20,93,730/-. IT IS IN THI S 4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A). 4. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE I SSUE IN QUESTION, ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROP ER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A), THEREON: 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND T HE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WHILE I WAS DEBATING AS TO HOW LONG CAN ONE WAIT FOR THE REPORTS AND HOW LONG CAN THE JUSTICE B E DELAYED, I CAME ACROSS-A JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (2010) 229 CTR P&H 190 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHAND NI BHUCHAR DELIVERED ON 07.01.2010 WHICH HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, VALUATION DONE BY STAMP DU TY AUTHORITIES COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. 12 THE HON'BLE COURT QUOTED AND ENDORSED THE ARGUME NTS ADVANCED BY THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN ITA NO. 1580/DEL/2008 AG AINST WHICH ORDER, THIS APPEAL WAS FILED, AS UNDER: 'FROM A PLAIN READING OF THIS PROVISION, IT EMERGED OUT THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOV ERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. 48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T RANSFER. IT NOWHERE PROVIDES THAT THE VALUATION DONE BY THE STATE GOVER NMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY ETC. WOULD IPSO FACTO TAKE PL ACE OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION AS BEING PASSED ON TO THE SELLER BY T HE PURCHASER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. THE AO IS REQUIRED T O BRING POSITIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD INDICATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAS PAID ANYTHING MORE THAN THE ONE DISCLOSED IN THE PURCHASE DEED. T HE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN AN ARGUMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER UNDER S. 142A OF ACT. IT ALSO RAISED A 5 PLEA THAT AO HAS WRONGLY MADE A REFERENCE OF S. 50C WHILE THE ADDITION. IN FACT, THE ADDITION IS MADE UNDER S. 69B ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE TAK EN COGNIZANCE OF BOTH THESE ARGUMENTS. IT IS THE AO WHO HIMSELF OUGH T TO HAVE COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID MORE MONEY THAN THE ONE DISCLOSED IN THE PURCHASE DEED. THE TRIBUNA L WHILE SITTING IN THE SECOND APPEAL IS NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE DIRECTIONS ON THE APPEAL OF REVENUE THAT A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER I S TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION. THE STEPS WHICH AO COULD HAVE TAKEN IF NOT TAKEN THEN THAT LACUNA CANNOT BE FILLED UP AT THE E ND OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE EXHIBITING THE FACT THA T ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY, NO AD DITION CAN BE JUSTIFIED. LEARNED FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS GROUND. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. ' 13. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FOLLOWING THINGS ARE VERY CLEAR : (I) COPY OF THE LEASE DEED AND COPY OF THE SALE DEED BE AR TESTIMONY TO THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SOLD TO THE SITTING TENANT. (II) TWO LETTERS FOR VACATION OF PREMISES AND AT L EAST 3 LEGAL NOTICES DURING THE YEAR 2003, 2004 & 2005 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL. (III) THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN DI SPUTE AND THIS WAS A DISTRESS SALE. (IV) A DISPUTED PROPERTY SOLD TO SITTING TENANTS CA N NEVER BE EQUATED WITH A REGULAR SALE. THE VALUATION BY WHICHEVER AUT HORITY IS ALWAYS DONE KEEPING THE GROUND SITUATION IN VIEW. (V) THE WIDOW MAY HAVE THOUGHT THAT EVEN RS.25 ' LACS P UT IN AN FD WOULD GIVE HER MORE MONEY THAN THE RENT AND WOUL D RELIEVE HER OF HARASSMENT & LEGAL HASSELS. WHAT OBJECTION CAN T HE DEPARTMENT HAVE TO THAT? WHAT SHE DOES WITH HER PROPERTY IS HE R BUSINESS UNTIL WE ARE ABLE TO PROVE THAT CONSIDERATION OVER & ABOVE T HE SALE PRICE HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO THE SELLER ASSESSEE. 6 (VI) FURTHER, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT'S JUDGE MENT IN CIT VS. CHANDNI BHUCHAR [SUPRA] FURTHER SEALS THE FATE OF REVENUE STATING THAT EVEN A REPORT OF THE DVO CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION UNLESS POSITIVE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT. 14 IN THE SITUATION CITED ABOVE AND GOING BY THE J UDGEMENT QUOTED ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.233119 /- ON THIS GROUND IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AS SUCH, THE SAME IS DELETED, ALLOWI NG ASSESSEE'S PLEA ON THESE GROUNDS. 5. AT THE OUTSET, WE MAY STATE HERE THAT THE CIT(A) MISAPPLIED THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V CHANDNI BHUCHAR 22 9 CTR 190 (P&H), AS THE SAME HAS BEEN RENDERED, IN TH E CONTEXT OF A PURCHASER, WHEREAS THE PRESENT APPELLANT IS A SELLER , WHICH SQUARELY FALLS U/S 50C OF THE ACT. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, RELIE D UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DECISION, DELIVERED OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CHANDNI BHUCHAR (SUPRA). THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, BEING SELLER, FALLS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IS DISTINGUISHAB LE IN THE CONTEXT OF PURCHASER. THE FACTS OF THE SAID DE CISION, RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A), ARE PATENTLY DIFFERE NT AND DISTINGUISHABLE. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR T HAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS CREATED A LEGAL FICTION, IN THE CASE OF A SELLER OR TRANSFEROR OR VENDOR U/S 50C OF THE ACT, FOR THE ADOPTION OF FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET , ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION ASSESSED OR ADOPTED BY THE STAMP 7 VALUATION AUTHORITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. SUCH LEGAL FICTION IS CREATED U/S 50C OF THE A CT, WITH A VIEW TO CURB THE COMPONENT OF BLACK MONEY IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IN THE CASE OF CHANDNI BHUCHAR (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE IS A PURCHASER AND THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WHICH CREATED LEGAL FICTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION U/S 48 OF TH E ACT, IS NOT APPLICABLE, TO THE CASE OF A PURCHASER. THE SECTION 50C OF THE ACT CONTEMPLATES DEEMED CONSIDERATION AN D NOT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TRANSFERRED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V CHANDNI BHUCHAR (SUPRA), IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THIS PROPOSITION IS FURTHER P ROVED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, INCORPORATED IN PARA 7 OF ITS ORDER, AS REPRODUCED IN THE SAID DECISION BY THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT : ' FROM A PLAIN READING OF THIS PROVISION, IT EMERGES OU T THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVE RNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. 48 BE DEEMED TO BE TH E FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER. IT NOWHERE PROVIDES THAT THE VALUATION DONE BY THE STA TE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY ETC. WOULD IPSO FACTO TAKE PLACE OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION AS BEI NG PASSED ON TO THE SELLER BY THE PURCHASER IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y OTHER EVIDENCE. THE AO IS REQUIRED TO BRING POSITIVE EVID ENCE ON RECORD INDICATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID A NYTHING MORE THAN THE ONE DISCLOSED IN THE PURCHASE DEED. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN AN ARGUMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATI ON OFFICER UNDER 8 S. 142A OF THE ACT. IT ALSO RAISED A PLEA THAT AO HA S WRONGLY MADE A REFERENCE OF S. 50C WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION, IN FAC T, THE ADDITION IS MADE UNDER S. 69B ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT IN THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF BOTH THESE AR GUMENTS. IT IS THE AO WHO HIMSELF OUGHT TO HAVE COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID MORE MONEY THAN THE ONE DISCLOSED IN THE PURCHASE DEED. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE SITTING IN THE SEC OND APPEAL IS NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE DIRECTIONS ON THE APPEAL OF REVENUE THAT A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER IS TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO SU BSTANTIATE THE ADDITION. THE STEPS WHICH AO COULD HAVE .TAKEN, IF NOT TAKEN T HEN THAT LACUNA CANNOT BE FILLED UP AT THE END OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MA DE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY, NO ADDITION CAN BE JUSTIFIED. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. WE DO NOT FIND A NY ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS GROUND. THUS, THE GROUND OF AP PEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED.' 6. IN THE CASE OF CHANDNI BHUCHARS CASE (SUPRA), T HE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT AND TREATED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE PURCHASER AS UNEXPLAINED, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMIN ATION OF THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT DEALS WITH THE SELLER OR TRANSFEROR OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT WITH THE PURCHAS ER OR THE TRANSFEREE. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION TH AT LEGAL FICTION CREATED UNDER THE STATUTE, IS TO BE STRICTL Y INTERPRETED AND, HENCE, CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO A DIFFERENT SITUATION, NOT CONTEMPLATED UNDER THAT LE GAL FICTION. SECTION 50C OF THE ACT EMBODIES LEGAL FIC TION, WHEREBY THE VALUE ASSESSED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIE S 9 IS CONSIDERED AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FO R SUCH CAPITAL ASSET, SO TRANSFERRED. SUCH STATUTORY LEGA L FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED, TO ROPE IN THE PURCHASE RS, IN THE CONTEXT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO STATE HERE THAT SECTION 69B OF THE ACT, DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE LEGAL FICTION, BY WHICH VALUE ASSESSED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY COULD BE CONSIDERE D TO BE THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE PURCHASE R OF THE PROPERTY. SECTION 69/69B, OF THE ACT CONTAINS EXPRESSION MAY WHICH IS NOT AKIN TO SHALL IN NA TURE. THEREFORE, THE DEEMING FICTION CREATED U/S 50C OF T HE ACT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, REGA RDING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUED TO THE SELLER, CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 69 OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF A PURCHASER. 7. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO STATE HERE THAT DEEMING PROVISION IS A WELL-KNOWN LEGISLATIVE DEVICE. WHAT IN FACT IS NOT DONE AS A FACT IS TREATED AS HAVING BEE N DONE. IN A STATUTE, WHEN THE EXPRESSION DEEMED TO BE IS USED, IT CREATES A FICTION AND A THING IS TREATE D TO BE THAT, INFACT, IT IS NOT. IN A LEGAL FICTION, AN IM AGINARY SITUATION IS TREATED AS REAL SITUATION, FOR A DEFIN ITE PURPOSE, FOR WHICH SUCH LEGAL FICTION IS CREATED BY LEGISLATIVE DEVICE. 7(I) IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT DEEMING PROVISION CREA TING LEGAL FICTIONS, SPECIALLY IN TAXING STATUTE HAVE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V 10 KESHAVLAL LALLUBHAI PATEL (1965) 55 ITR 637 (S.C), SMT.MOHINI THAPAR V CIT (1972) 83 ITR 208 (S.C), CI T V C.P.SARATHY MUDALIAR (1972) 83 ITR 170 (S.C) AND CI T V VADILAL LALLUBHAI (1972) 86 ITR 2 (S.C). LEGAL FIC TIONS CREATED FOR A DEFINITE PURPOSE SHOULD BE LIMITED FO R THAT PURPOSE AND CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THEIR LEGITIM ATE NEEDS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V AMARCHAND N.SHR OFF (1963) 48 ITR 59 (S.C) AND CIT V AJAX PRODUCTS (196 5) 55 ITR 74 (S.C.). THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT GIVE EFFECT TO THE FICTION, AS HELD IN T HE CASE OF CIT V MAHARAJ KUMAR KAMAL SINGH (1973) 89 ITR 1 (S.C). NO WORDS WHICH ARE NOT THERE CAN BE READ IN THE STATUTE, AS HELD IN CIT V VADILAL LALLUBHAI (1972) 86 ITR 2 (S.C). THE RULE OF CONSTRUCTION OF LEGAL FICTION IS TO HUNT IN PAIRS AS HELD IN CIT V CHHOTELAL KANHAIYA LAL (1971) 80 ITR 656 (MP). SO IN CONSTRUING A PROVISIO N CREATING A STATUTORY FICTION, TWO RULES OPERATE : T HE STATUTORY FICTION SHOULD BE CARRIED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION BUT THE FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYON D THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION BY WHICH IT IS CREATED OR BY IMPORTING ANOTHER FICTION. THE SOLUTION IS FOUND B Y HARMONIOUSLY APPLYING THESE RULES. 7(II) THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. S.TEJA SINGH (1959) 35 ITR 408 (S.C) HELD THAT IT IS WELL-SETTLE D RULE OF INTERPRETATION THAT IN CONSTRUING THE SCOPE OF A LEGAL FICTION, IT WOULD BE PROPER AND EVEN NECESSARY TO ASSUME ALL THOSE FACTS ON WHICH ALONE THE FICTION C AN OPERATE. A CONSTRUCTION WHICH DEFEATS THE VERY OBJE CT 11 SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE LEGISLATURE MUST, IF POSSIBLE, BE AVOIDED. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF CHANDNI BHUCHAR (SUPR A), RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A PURCHASER, IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS THE APPELLANT IS A SELLER, COVERED U/S 50C OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), CANNOT HAVE ANY SUPPORT, FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDNI BUCHAR (SUPRA) AS CITE D AND RELIED UPON BY HER. 9. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATI ON, IN CERTAIN CASES, AS CONTAINED U/S 50C OF THE ACT A RE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF TEXT AND CONTENTS OF THE SAME : 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING L AND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE B Y ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO A S THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUT Y IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHA LL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1), WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABL E BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY O THER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF T HE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS M ADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, S UB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, 12 SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEAL TH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THA T ACT. EXPLANATION 1.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, VALUATION OFFICER SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). EXPLANATION 2.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TH E EXPRESSION ASSESSABLE MEANS THE PRICE WHICH THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, ADOPTED OR ASSESSED, IF IT WER E REFERRED TO SUCH AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRE D TO IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACC RUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. 10. A BARE READING OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT REVEAL S THAT IT INCORPORATES SPECIAL PROVISIONS, FOR DETERM INING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION, IN CASE OF TRANSFE R OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IT PROVIDES THAT WHERE CONSIDERATION DECLARED TO BE RECEIVED OR ACCRUING A S A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOT H, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSAB LE BY AN AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT, I.E. STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER. THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION, AND CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CONSIDERATION U/S 48 OF THE ACT. 11. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT, STIPULATES NECESSARY CONDITIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, BY THE AO. FULFILLMENT OF STATUTORY CONDITIONS ARE MANDATORY I N 13 CHARACTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE DVO, BY THE AO. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE REPRODU CED HEREUNDER: A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE AO THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THAT DAY OF TRANSFER; AND B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED, IN APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY OR COURT. 12. IT IS MENTIONED THAT CONSEQUENCES WHERE THE VAL UE IS DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, ARE PROVIDE D U/S 50C(III) OF THE ACT. NO CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ST AMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FMV OF THE ASSET, A S CONTEMPLATED U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT. IN SUCH A FACT - SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE, DECISION OF THE AO, WHEREBY IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT REFERENCE TO VALUAT ION OFFICER IS OPTIONAL, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBJ ECTED TO THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STATE VALUATION AUTHORI TY, AND, HENCE, THERE WAS NO NEED TO REFER THE MATTER T O THE VALUATION CELL. THIS VIEW OF THE AO HAS BEEN SUPPO RTED BY THE BOMBAY ITAT IN THE CASE OF KALPTARU INDUSTRI ES V ITO, ITA NO. 5540/MUM/2007 DATED 24.08.2009. SECTION 50C OF THE ACT COMES INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN, T HERE IS VALUATION AT A HIGHER VALUE FOR STAMP VALUATION 14 PURPOSES, BY THE STATE AUTHORITY, THAN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE SALE DEED. 12(I) IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT, SECTION 50C OF THE AC T PLACES CONSIDERABLE BURDEN ON THE TAX PAYER TO PROV E THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION, AS DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO. 8/2002, DATED 27 AUG.,2002 : (2002) 258 ITR (ST) 13. 37. COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. 37.1 THE FINANCE ACT,2002, HAS INSERTED A NEW SECTION 50C IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO MAKE A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR DETERMINING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CASES OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 37.2 IT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CONSIDERATION DECLARED TO BE RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS T HAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE S O ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION, AND CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED ACCORDINGLY UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 37.3 IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, AND HE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY OR 15 COURT, THE AO MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE RELEVANT ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 55A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATIO N OFFICER IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, THE AO MAY TAKE SUCH FAIR MARKET VALUE TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. HOWEVE R, IF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATIO N OFFICER IS MORE THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, THE AO SHALL NOT ADOPT SUCH FAIR MARKET VALUE AND SHALL TAKE THE FULL VALU E OF CONSIDERATION TO BE THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. 37.4 THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL,2003 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 12(II) SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, IS A SPECIAL PROVISI ON INTENDED TO DEAL WITH UNACCOUNTED INCOME, IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, BY THE SIMPLE DEVICE OF UNDER- STATEMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION, BY WAY OF SUBSTITU TING A DEEMED STATUTORY CONSIDERATION, IN PLACE OF THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION SPECIFIED IN THE SALE DOCUME NT. THIS SECTION MANDATES ADOPTION OF VALUE OF THE CAPI TAL ASSET SOLD OR TRANSFERRED ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, THER E IS INBUILT SAFEGUARD PROVIDED TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE SELLER. AN OPTION IS GIVEN TO THE SELLER U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT EITHER TO APPEAL AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR REGISTRATION BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY O R TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THUS , SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT, PROVIDES TWO REMEDIES AT 16 THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THAT, HE CAN EITHER FILE APPEAL AGAINST STAMP VALUE OR SEEK REFERENCE TO VALUATION CELL. ADOPTION OF THE VALUE BY THE VALUAT ION CELL IS AGAIN SUBJECT TO REGULAR APPEALS AVAILABLE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO. HOWEVER, WHETHER ASSE SSEE HAD NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITY, THE AO IS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE CLEAR MADE OF LAW AS CONTAINED U/S 50C(2 ) OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF AMBATTUR CLOTHING CO.LTD., V ACIT (2010 ) 326 ITR 245 (MAD). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MOHD. SOHAIB V DCIT (20 10) 1 ITR (TRIB) 452 (LUCKNOW), WHEREBY IT WAS HELD THA T WHERE NO CLAIM IS MADE AT ALL BY THE ASSESSEE DISPU TING THE SUBSTITUTION OF STAMP DUTY FOR CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY HIM, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF TH E ACT IS BOUND TO BE APPLIED. 12(III) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT TO PURCHASER, SO THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE STAMP VALUE, AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V HARLEY STREET PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (2010) 6 ITR (TR IB) 182 (AHD.) 12(IV) WHERE THE AO REFERS THE MATTER TO VALUATION CELL, ON ASSESSEE'S OBJECTION, HE HAS TO AWAIT SUCH VALUATION REPORT, SO THAT THE ADOPTION OF STAMP VAL UE, WITHOUT AWAITING THE VALUATION REPORT WOULD NOT BE 17 VALID, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MEENAKSHI (N) V ACIT (2010) 326 ITR 229 (MAD.). SIMILARLY, ON THE SAME REASONING AND ANALOGY, WHERE THE AO REFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION CELL, ON THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A), THEN, THE CIT(A) IS NOT COMPETENT TO DELETE THE ADDITION, WITHOUT WAITING FOR SUCH REPORT FROM THE VALUATION CELL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, CIT(A) DIRECT ED THE AO TO REFER THE PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION CELL, THO UGH NO SUCH CLAIM FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE AO, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, WITHOUT WAITING F OR SUCH REPORT FROM THE VALUATION CELL. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE ITO, MOHALI HAD WRITTEN A LETTER TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER, CHANDIGARH, WHICH I S REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : NO.ITO/W-6(3)/MOHALI/09/10/19968 OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3),MOHALI. TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER, SCO 45, 2 ND FLOOR, SECTOR 31-D,CHANDIGARH. SIR, SUB : REFERENCE TO ELUCIDATE THE COST OF LAND AND BUILDING/FAIR MARKET VALUE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BOOTH NO.2927B SECTOR 22C CHANDIGARH- REGARDING . THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT.INDERJIT KAUR, H.NO.77, PHASE 3B1, MOHALI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. WHILE WORKING OUT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS , THE VALUE OF BUILT UP BOOTH NO.2927B, SECTOR 22C,CHANDIGARH SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 09.02.2006 WAS TAKEN AT RS.44.00 LACS AS ADOPTED BY THE SUB- REGISTRAR, CHANDIGARH, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE IS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A),CHANDIGARH. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE 18 LD. CIT(A),CHANDIGARH REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO YO UR OFFICE TO ELUCIDATE THE COST OF LAND AND BUILDING/F AIR MARKET VALUE ON THE RELEVANT DATE. KINDLY TREAT IT AS URGENT SINCE A REPORT IN THIS CA SE IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A),CHANDIGARH. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- ( DARSHAN SINGH ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3) MOHALI. 13. FINDINGS OF THE AO AS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 24.11.2008 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, VIDE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED 7.10.2008, SH. IQBAL SINGH, SON OF THE ASSESS EE, AND SH. OM PARKASH AGGARWAL, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE APPRISED OF THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE I.T.ACL, 1961 ACCORDING TO WHICH THE SAL E VALUE OF THE SAID BUILT UP BOOTH WAS TO BE ADOPTED AT RS. 44.00 LACS AS AGAINST RS. 25.00 LACS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. A LETTER DATED 15.10.2008, IN THIS REGARD, AS WELL AS TO GIVE EVID ENCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TRADE TO THE ESTATE OFFICE, CHANDIGARH WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON 10.11.2008, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE ATT ENDED AND FILED A WRITTEN REPLY ALONG WITH A COPY OF VALU ATION REPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID BOOTH AS ON JUNE 1997. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY FURNISHED ON 10.11.2008 HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH SH. IQBAL SINGH , SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND SH.OM PARKASH AGGARWAL, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD LO ANY LEGAL NOTIC E ISSUED LO VACATE THE PROPERLY OR ANY SUCH TYPE OF EVIDENCE LO SOLVE THE LITIGATION, IF ANY. THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REQUIREMENT OF MONEY TO FINANCE TH E EDUCATION AND MARRIAGE OF HER SON AND DAUGHTER WHIC H 19 RESULTED IN IMMEDIATE SALE OF THE SAID PROPERLY AT A THROW-AWAY PRICE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF VARIOUS FACTS SUCH AS - PRIOR LO THIS SALE ON 9.2.2 006, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOLD PROPERLY BOOTH NO.L08,SECLOR 9- C,CHANDIGARH ON 21.10.2005 FOR RS.15,00,000/-, AS W ELL AS FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS. 14. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO ADD HERE THAT THE AO, COULD HAVE FILED THE VALUATION REPORT BEFORE THE CIT(A), ONLY AFTER IT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DVO. AS PER PARA 8 OF THE CIT(A)S APPELLATE ORDER, A DIRECTION WAS ISSUE D BY THE CIT(A), VIDE LETTER NO.635A DATED 11.12.2009, T O REFER THE CASE TO THE DVO. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT (A), ISSUED LETTERS TO THE AO, FOR FURNISHING THE REPORT , AS DIRECTED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A), DELETED THE IMP UGNED ADDITION OF RS.24,06,270/-, WITHOUT RECEIPT OF THE REPORT FROM THE DVO AND FOLLOWING THE INAPPLICABLE DECISION, IN THE CASE OF CHANDNI BHUCHAR (SUPRA), A S DISCUSSED EARLIER. SUCH APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND THE CONCEPT OF JURISPRUDENCE OF TRUE JUSTI CE. 15. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY TENABLE. HOWEVER, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ISSUE IS RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF THE AO, TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH, AFTER OBTAINING THE VALUATION REPORT. THE AO SHOULD GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATE T HE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO RENDE R 20 EFFECTIVE AND PROPER COOPERATION TO THE AO IN THE MATTER. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEB.,2012. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHA R SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22 ND FEB.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, CHANDIGARH
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation with family dentist -Your Smile Deserves the Best Care!
₹250
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Early Retirement Letter
₹0
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026