J.P.Annadurai, Pondicherry V. ITO, Pondicherry

ITA 1134/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8685 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 1 1 3 4/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 1 0 - 11 SHRI J.P. ANNADURAI, 11, KARUNAGARA PILLAI STREET, KOSAPALAYAM, PUDUCHERRY 605 013. [PAN: A K YPP2123R ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD I ( 1 ) , PUDUCHERRY. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T . VASUDEVAN , ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI A.V. SREEKANTH , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 . 0 6 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 24. 0 8 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - PUDUCHERRY , CHENNAI DATED 2 7 . 02 .20 1 5 RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRARY TO LAW, ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE . I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 2 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN COMPUTING THE ASSESSABLE CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.2401906/ - I S AGAINST RS.86184/ - RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LAND IN 1984 - 85 BY WAY OF FILLING AND RAI SING THE LEVEL OF GROUND BY INCURRING AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.4.15 LACS AND IS ENTITLED TO INDEXATION ON THIS AMOUNT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AS PER SEC.48(2) OF THE ACT. 4. THE CIT(A) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BILLS FROM THE DEALER WHO HAD SUPPLIED THE MATERIALS AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SAME WITHOUT DUE REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME AND HENCE THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WITHOUT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF INDEXA TION ON IMPROVEMENT COST IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNTENABLE IN LAW. 5. THE CIT(A), IN ANY EVENT, OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE BONAFIDE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND ALLOWED A REASONABLE AMOUNT ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS AS HAVING INCURRED ON IMPROVEMENT COST ON L AND AND THUS DIRECTED THE OFFICER TO APPLY INDEXATION ON THE SAME. 6. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN COMPUTING THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE DIVIDED AMONGST HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS AS PER THE WISHES OF HIS FATHER. 7. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FACTUM OF DISBURSEMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION AMONGST HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DUE TO ESTRANGEMENT AMONGST THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEIR NON - COOPERATION IN PROVIDING CONFIRMATIONS AND THIS CANNOT BE A REASON TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 8. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN DUE COGNIZANCE TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT ONLY THE PORTION OF CONSIDERATION RECEIV ED RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS IN HIS HANDS AND THUS DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 9. THE CIT(A), IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND ACCEPTED THE CAP ITAL GAINS AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL SPARES UNDER THE NAME SRI KRISHNA I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 3 INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION . THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 01.04. 2011 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF .1,87,600/ - . THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY ALONG WITH SMT. VIJAYA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF .1,17,60,000/ - ON 20.04.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY CAPITAL GAIN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 19.11.2012 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF .2,73,780/ - . THE CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED O N 15.10.2012. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 17.07.2013. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 18.11.2013 ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .57,48,502/ - . 3. WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF .4.15 LAKHS TOWARDS MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LAND IN 1984 - 85, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INDEXATION ON THE EXPENSES OF . 4,15,000/ - STATED TO HAVE I NCURRED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE LAND, WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE FOR IMPROVEMENT WORK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 4 REQUESTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO REFER THE CASE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO OBJECTED THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF .4,15,000/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT TO THE D VO AND ALSO SUBMIT A REPORT AFTER G IVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED A REPORT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 27.01.2015 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER ESTIMATED THE FMV OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF 68 KUZHIS OF LAND SITUATED AT VIL LANGU VALLAR MUNICIPAL STREET, WARD F, BLOCK NO. 21, R .S. NO. 344/5, C.NO. 339 PART, P ATTA NO. 262 , PONDICHERRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 27.01.2015 ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CASH BILLS FOR AN AMOUNT OF .2,15,000/ - AND .2,00,000/ - IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY AN ENGAGEMENT OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR EARTH FILLING AND CONSTRUCTING A REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL AROUND THE LAND IN THE YEAR 1984 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 17.02.2015, THE LD. CIT(A) REQUESTED THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE CASH BILLS ON 27.02.2015 AS REFERRED IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 27.01.2015. HOWEVER, SINCE THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH CASH BILLS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HE REJECTED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BY FILING COPY OF THE CASH BILLS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE EXPENDITURE I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 5 INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF HIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO A CCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION COST OF ACQUISITION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH CASH BILL FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT OF HIS PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF INDEXATION ON THE EXPENSES. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 27.01.2015 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CASH BILLS FOR AN AMOUNT OF .2,15,000/ - AND .2,00,000/ - IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY AN ENGAGEMENT OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR EARTH FILLING AND CONSTRUCTING A REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL AROUND THE LAND IN THE YEAR 1984. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE OUT ANY COMMENTS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH BILLS FOR AN AMOUNT OF .2,15,000/ - AND .2,00,000/ - DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE CASH BILLS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FINDS THAT IT CANNOT BE HELD AS VALID CASH BILLS BECAUSE BOTH THE BILLS DA TED 09.01.2015 HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY ANJALACHI BLUE METALS & LORRY SERVICES, PUDHUCHERRY ON 09.01.2015 FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIALS I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 6 INCLUDING LABOUR CHARGES DURING MAY, 1984. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER SUCH SUPPLIER COMPANY EXIST ED IN THE YEAR 1984 OR NOT. WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASH BILLS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN AT .86,184/ - . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE AS PER THE RATE OF THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR ARRIVING AT THE CAPITAL GAINS AT .54,74,722/ - . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, BY ACCEPT ING THE ASSESSEE S SHARE OF 50 % OF THE TOTAL SALE VALUE SINCE ASSESSEE S SISTER AND THE ASSESSEE ARE JOINT SIGNATORIES TO THE DOCUMENT OF SALE AND AFTER REDUCING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) WORKED OUT AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS AT .23,15,717/ - . 8.1 ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED AMONGST ASSESSEE S BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND DUE TO DISPUTE, THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS ARE NOT COOPERATING IN PROVIDING CONFIRMATION OF HAVING RECEIVED THEIR SHARES. THEREFORE, THE LD. I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 7 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT ONLY THE PORTION OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAXED. 8.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. DR HAS FILED COPY OF THE ANOTHER VALUATION REPORT DATED 21.09.2015 ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT .2,35,00,800/ - AS ON 20.04.2009 AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF .51,82,000/ - AND REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AFRESH. 8.3 PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STRO NGLY OBJECTED TO THE REVISED FAIR MARKET VALUE FILED BY THE LD. DR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS EXORBITANTLY ON HIGHER SIDE AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. 8. 4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER ON 19.08.2013 ALONG WITH A COPY OF SALE DEED AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 08.10.2004 , WHEREAS, THE SALE WAS AGREED FOR .62,20,000/ - BY BOTH THE PARTIES. FURTHER, ON 07.11.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONE AFFIDAVIT AND TWO XEROX COPIES OF AGREEMENT DATED 08.10.2004 AND 06.09.2006 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY SOL D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED FROM THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 8 PROPERTY SOLD WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI J.P. ANNADURAI S FATHER IN THE NAME OF SHRI ANNADURAI WHEN HE WAS AT THE AGE OF 22. AFTER THE DEATH OF ASSESSEE S FATHER ON 04.05.2004, SINCE HIS FATHER D ID NOT WRITE A WILL, HIS FOUR BROTHERS AN D THREE SISTER S QUARRELLED FOR SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. HENCE, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND ALL OF THEM HAVE TAKEN THEIR SHARE. HE FURTHER STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE ADOPTED IS A HIGHER ONE. HE REC EIVED .48,54,111/ - ONLY. HE FILED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IN WHICH .7,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT ON 20.04.2009 AND IT WAS ONLY HIS SHARE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS TAKEN AS FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR ARRIVING AT THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED THE CAPITAL GAINS AT .54,74,722/ - AFTER REDUCING THE CAPITAL GAINS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN OF .86,184/ - . BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S SHARE OF 50% OF THE TOTAL SALE VALUE SINCE ASSESSEE S SISTER AND THE ASSESSEE ARE JOINT SIGNATORIES TO THE DOCUMENT OF SALE AND AFTER REDUC ING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) WORKED OUT AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS AT .23,15,717/ - . 8.5 ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, TWO PROPERTIES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SIST ER SMT. VIJAYA WERE SOLD AS PER SALE DEED DATED 20.04.2009. THE I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 9 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT A S PER ASSESSEE S BANK STATEMENT, .7,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED ON 20.04.2009 AS HIS SHARE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GA INS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE HAVING SHARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AMONGST THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON 07.11.2013 STATING THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE SALE O F HIS PROPERTY, ETC. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY PIECE OF EVIDENCE HAVING SHARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AMONG THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE INITIAL BURDEN CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE HAVI NG SHARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AMONG THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS. ADMITTEDLY, THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PIECE OF EVIDENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THA T SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS SHARED AMONG THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCUR WITH THE WORKING OF CAPITAL GAINS BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. 6 DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING, THE LD. DR HAS FILED A REVISED VALUATION REPORT DATED 21.09.2015 ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT .2,35,00,800/ - AS ON 20.04.2009 AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF .51,82,000/ - VIDE HIS EARLIER REPORT DATED 23.12.2014 FOR ADMISSION. WE HAVE PERU SED BOTH THE I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 10 REPORT OF VALUATION MADE BY THE SAME VALUATION OFFICER. THE HUGE DIFFERENCE FOR ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BETWEEN THE FIRST VALUATION REPORT DT. 23.12.2014 AND SECOND VALUATION REPORT DT. 21.09.2015 WAS ON ACCOUNT FOR THE APPRECIATION I N THE LAND RATE DURING 01.04.2008 TO 20.04.2009 [I.E. 15 MONTHS] AND ACCORDINGLY ENHANCED THE PER SQ.FT. RATE TO THE EXTENT OF 186% PER ANNUM, THEREBY FIXED THE LAND VALUE AT .600/ - PER SQ.FT. THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE/G.O OF PUDUCHERRY U.T. TOWARDS ENHANCEMENT FACTOR @ 186% PER ANNUM. THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS ALSO ADMITTED IN HIS REPORT THAT AS PER PAGE 10 OF THE DOCUMENT, THE SALE TRANSACTION HAS STARTED TAKEN PLACE DURING THE YEAR 2003 - 2006 AND MOREOVER THE LAND WAS ALREADY HANDED OVER TO THE PARTY FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT REGISTRATION WAS TAKEN PLACE DURING 2009. BUT THIS FACT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER DUE TO THE OBJECTION MADE BY T HE REVIEWING AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, WHAT WAS THE OBJECTION OF THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY WAS NOT FURNISHED IN THE VALUATION REPORT. AS PER SECTION 18 OF REGISTRATION ACT 1908 OF PUDUCHERRY REGISTRATION RULES, THE REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENT IS OPTIONAL. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE ACTUAL SALE TRANSACTION WAS TAKEN PLACE. IN THE VALUATION REPORT, IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE LAND RATES IN PONDICHERRY WERE KEEP ON APPRECIATING DURING THE PERIOD FROM 2007 ONWARDS AND THAT MEANS PRIOR TO 2007, THERE WAS NO APPRECIATION IN THE LAND RATES. IF IT IS SO, JUST BECAUSE THE REGISTRATION WAS TAKEN PLACE IN 2009, VALUING THE LAND WITH HIGHER RATES, I.T.A. NO . 1 134 /M/ 15 11 WHICH WAS TRANSACTED DURING 2003 - 2006 IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AN D LEGALLY VIABLE. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REVISED VALUATION REPORT DATED 21.09.2015 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 15.03.2016 IS REJECTED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 24 TH A UGUST, 201 6 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 24 . 0 8 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.