ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad V. Shri Mahendrabhai Shankarji Thakor, Ahmedabad

ITA 1175/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7376 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAXAM SINGH GURJAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences; Revised return; TDS
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 43B; 143(3); 54B; 56(2); 43; 13; 56; 2

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH D BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2014-15 ITO, WARD-3(3)(3) AHMEDABAD. VS. SHRI MAHENDRABHAI SHANKARJI THAKOR 10, NANO THAKOR VAS AMBALI, AHMEDABAD 380 058. PAN : AERPT 0259 H / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI LAXAM SINGH GURJAR, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, AR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 19/11/2019 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/01/2020 %& / O R D E R PER MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMEBR: PRESENT APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE IS DI RECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 16.3.2018 PASSED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, AHMEDABAD ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 3 0.12.2016 PASSED BY THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL, O UT OF WHICH ONLY TWO GROUNDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED BY US. THEY READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,60,09,128/- MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUN T OF DISALLOWANCE ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 2 CLAIMED U/S 54B OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE SAME. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.77,86,500/- MADE BY A.O. WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED BEFORE THE SUB R EGISTRAR AUTHORITY AND PAID THE STAMP DUTY 3. WE TAKE FIRST GROUND REGARDING DELETION OF ADDIT ION OF RS.1,60,09,128/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 54B O F THE ACT. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURE LAND ADMEASURING 10117 SQ.METERS SITUATED AT VILLAGE AMB LI TOGETHER WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,35,00,0 00/- BY REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 17.1.2014. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 50% SHARE IN THAT PROPERTY, WHICH CAME TO RS.2,67,50,000/- ON WH ICH CAPITAL GAIN IS LIABLE FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT DEDU CTION IN RESPECT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.1,60,09,128/-. THE LD.AO SOUGHT EXPLANATION FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT COST FROM THE ASSE SSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON TWO COUNTS. FIRSTLY, IT WAS EX PLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS BETWEEN 1982 TO 1993 AND THE ASSESSEE BEING AN AGRICULTURIS T WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RECORDS AND THAT TOO FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 23 TO 34 YEARS. THESE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TOWARDS FILLING OF PITS WHICH DEVELOPED DURING EXCA VATION OF SAND FOR MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS AND DIGGING BORE-WELL AND P ITS FOR STORING RAIN WATER, AND ALSO CONSTRUCTION OF CATTLE SHEDS AND ST ORAGE HOUSES. SINCE THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED THREE DECADES BACK, N O DETAILS COULD BE TRACEABLE OR LOST DUE TO TIME ECLIPSE. SECONDLY, A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, BECAUSE THE S ALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE PROPERTY HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER AGRICULTURE LAND. THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 3 WAS NOT FOUND TENABLE TO THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HE ALSO DISMISSED THE EXPLANA TION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO COVERED UNDER SECTION 54B OF T HE ACT, FIRSTLY ON THE GROUND THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE MADE SUCH CLAIM IN HIS RETURN NOR FILED ANY VALID REVISED RETURN. SECONDLY, ON THE GROUND T HAT TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND HAS TAKEN PLACE BE FORE THE SALE OF THE SALE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO THE AO, AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 54B, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES TO PURCHASE THE AGRICULT URE LAND AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURE LAND ON WHICH CAPIT AL GAIN HAS ARISEN. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION . THIS ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED THE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO, AND ALSO CONSIDERING VA RIOUS JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AG GRIEVED REVENUE IS NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHILE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MAD E BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. HEARD PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERE D RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FOR ADJUDICATING TH IS ISSUE, IT IS IMPERATIVE UPON US TO EXTRACT RELEVANT DECISION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). IT READ AS UNDER: 4.2 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSION, ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES AND REJOINDER OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IS A DMITTED AS THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT PRODUCING THE EVIDENCES BE FORE THE A. O. AND THE SAME IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO GO TO THE ROOT OF T HE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED. THEREFORE, SAME ARE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION TO PR OVIDE NATURAL JUSTICE TO APPELLANT AND SUCH ADMISSION IS SUPPORTED BY FOLLOW ING CASE LAWS: ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 4 - KAMLABEN S BHATTI 44 TAXMAN.COM 459 (GUJ.) DHARMA MDEV FINANCE PVT LIMITED 43 TAXMAN.COM 395 (GUJ.). - ACIT VS JOGINDERSINGH (ITA NO. 2942/DELHI/20 11) ITAT, DELHI - ANMOL COLOUR INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 31 SOT 18 (JP) 121 ITJ 269: ITAT, JAIPUR. - CIT VS. KHANPUR COOL SYNDICATE (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC): AS FAR AS FACTS OF THE CASE ARE CONCERNED, THE APPE LLANT HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AND INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT ON AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH EVIDENCES OF IMPROVEMENT FOR LAND WHICH HAP PEN THREE DECADES AGO. THEREFORE, VALUATION MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER OF THE APPELLANT SHOWING THE VALUE OF SAID AGRICULTURE LAND ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.10,11,600/- AND IMPROVEMENT COST RS..9,55,560/- IN 1982 WAS NOT ACC EPTED BY THE AO. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH PROPOSITION, THE APPELLANT SUBMITT ED ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION SUCH AS THE DEDUCTION U/S.54B SHOULD BE ALLOWED. TH E DEDUCTION U/S.54B WAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO FOR FOLLOWING REASONS: A) THE REGISTRATION OF PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND DATED 28.11.2013 HAPPENS TO BE BEFORE THE SALE OF ORIGINAL AGRICULTU RAL LAND FOR WHICH SALE HAS BEEN REGISTERED ON 13.01.2014. B) THE CLAIM U/S.54B IS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME, HENCE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 2006) 284 ITR 323(SC). HOWEVER, APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE RATIONALE BEH IND INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 54B IS VERY CLEAR AND THE SAME TO BE CONSID ERED. IT IS SUPREMELY BASED ON CONCEPT OF RE-INVESTMENT FROM THE PROCEEDS ARISI NG FROM SALE OF PREVIOUS LAND. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT BEING FARM ER SITUATED IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT WAS REQUIRED TO RETAIN HIS NAME IN REVENUE RECORDS AS FARMER IN ORDER TO MAKE HIM ELIGIBLE TO ACQUIRE NEW AGRICULTURAL LA ND AND THEREFORE, APPELLANT FIRST NEGOTIATED SALE OF LAND WHICH HAD FALLEN IN U RBAN AREA DUE TO EXPANSION OF AHMEDABAD AND WAS GRADUALLY BECOMING UNFIT FOR AGRI CULTURAL OPERATIONS DUE TO POLLUTION, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC & OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND THEN NEGOTIATED PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE TELAV WITH AN U NDERSTANDING THAT PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WOULD BE PAID FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AMBLI LAND AS AND WHEN RECEIVED. EXECUTION OF PURCHASE DEED FIRST HELPED A PPELLANT TO RETAIN HIS NAME IN REVENUE RECORDS AS FARMER CONSIDERING LAND REVEN UE CODE APPLICABLE TO THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THIS FACT IS APPARENT FROM THE FO LLOWING SUBMISSION IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS (PAGE 6 OF ASSESSM ENT ORDER): '4.1 THE REASON FOR PRE-EXECUTION OF THE PURCHASE O F AGRICULTURAL LAND AT TELAV, WAS THAT THE PERSON SHA LL BE AGRICULTURIST WHOSE NAME MUST APPEAR ON 7/12, 8A RECORDS OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AS A FARMER. ONCE THE AMBLI LAND DEED IS EXECUTED, THE ASSESSEE CEASED TO BE A FARMER WHEREBY HE CANNOT PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT TELAV.' THE APPELLANT GOT REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED ON 29TH NOVEMBER, 2013 BY GIVING POST DATED CHEQUES BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF 'KAMURTA' I.E. INAUSPICIOUS PERIOD OF ONE MONTH COMMENCING ON 15TH DECEMBER AND ENDING ON 14TH JANUARY, 2014. THE BUYERS OF AMBLI LAND WERE TO GET FUNDS POST 'KAMURTA' AND THEREFORE, SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER END OF 'KAMURTA' I.E. ON 17TH JANUARY, 2014 EVEN THOUGH CHEQUES CLEARED AFTE R EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 5 THE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF ORIGINAL AGRICULTURAL LA ND HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DATE-WISE INVESTMENT INTO NEW AGRI CULTURAL LAND WHICH IS AS UNDER: DATE OF CHEQUE AS PER SALE DEED OF AMBLI LAND CHEQUE NO NAME OF THE BUYER WHO PAID THE AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT ACTUAL DATE OF CREDIT OF CHEQUES IN THE BANK A/C AMOUNT REED DATE OF CHEQUE AS PER PURCHASE DEED O F TELAV LAND CHEQUE NO NAME OF THE SELLER TO WHOM 'A' PAID PURCHASE CONSIDERATIO N ACTUAL DATE OF DEBIT OF CHEQUE IN THE BANK A/C AMOUNT PAID TDS U/S 194IA CHATURBHAI AMBALAL PATEL 89167 30/09/13 131101 JANUBEN 31/10/1 3 100000 TDS U/S 194IA JAY CHATURBHAI PATEL 89167 30/09/13 131102 RAFIYUDDIN 31/10/1 3 100000 TDS U/S 194IA HINAL CHATURBHAI PATEL 89170 30/09/13 131103 HUSNABEN 31/10/1 3 100000 20/11/13 298049 JAY CHATURBHAI PATEL 21/11/13 3300000 25/11/13 131107 JANUBEN 27/11/1 3 3300000 20/11/13 337918 CHATURBHAI AMBALAL PATEL 21/11/13 3400000 25/11/13 168421 RAFIYUDDIN 27/11/1 3 3400000 20/11/13 358830 HINAL CHATURBHAI PATEL 21/11/13 3300000 25/11/13 168406 HUSNABEN 27/11/1 3 3300000 19/1?/13 421666 CHATURBHAI AMBALAL PATEL 26/12/13 5427530 29/11/13 131108 JANUBEN 31/12/1 3 5566666 19/12/13 421685 JAY CHATURBHAI PATEL 26/12/13 5527530 29/11/13 168422 RAFIYUDDIN 31/12/1 3 5566668 19/12/13 HINAL CHATURBHAI PATEL 26/12/13 5527430 29/11/13 168407 HUSNABEN 31/12/1 3 5566666 TOTAL 26749994 TOTAL 27000000 THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER IS IMPORTANT IN THIS CA SE AND THE FACT PROVED ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS UTILIZED SALES CONSIDE RATION OF OLD LAND FOR PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND. SINCE APPELLANT HAD PRIMA FACIE COMPLIED WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 54B, DEDUCTION U/S.54B IS AVAILABLE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN NEW LAND I.E. RS.2,70,00,0007- BEING MORE THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED I.E. RS.2,67,50,0007-AGAINST OLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IN SUCH A SCENARIO THERE REMAINS NO NEED TO FURNISH AN Y EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT IN POSSESSION OF APPELLANT DUE TO LAPSE OF TIME. WITH REGARD TO COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B, APPELLANT APART FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON AMBLI LAND [WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OTHERWI SE NOT DISPUTED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER] ALSO FURNISHED FOLLOWING EXPLANAT ION WHICH HAS BEEN QUOTED AT PAGE NO.SOF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IS REPRODUCED B ELOW: '4.1........HOWEVER, DESPITE THE DATE OF LAND PURCH ASE DEED PRECEDES THE LAND SALE DEED, THE FUNDS RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND HAVE INVARIABLY BEEN USED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THUS, THERE ARE CONFLICT IF LEGAL PROVISIONS BETWEEN THE REVENUE CODE IN GUJARAT WHICH MAKE IT M ANDATORY TO BE A FARMER ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHEREAS INCOME-TAX ACT STIPULATES THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AF TER SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN SUCH A SITUATION OF LEGAL COMPLEXITY, THE VITAL FACTOR OF FUND FLOW WHEREIN THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED HAVE BEEN USED . FOR PURCHASE OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION CAN BE SEEN BEYOND DOUBT. TH US, IT IS THE RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT, THE INT ENT OF THE LEGISLATION ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 6 NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION OBJECTIVELY AN D HARMONIOUSLY. IN THIS REGARD HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DI RECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VS DIPAK MAHAJAN AIR 1994 (SC) 1775 HAS HELD THAT, IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COURTS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OSTENSIBLE PURPOSE OR OBJECT AND REAL LEGISLATIVE INTENT. A BARE MECHANIC AL OF THE WORDS DEVOID OF CONCEPT OF PURPOSE WILL RENDER THE LEGISLATIVE I NTENT INANE. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE COURTS CAN BY ASCERTAINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT, PLACE SUCH CONSTRUCTION ON A ST ATUTE AS WOULD ADVANCE ITS PURPOSE AND OBJECT. WHERE THE WORDS OF STATUTE ARE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS, EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO THEM. THE LEGI SLATURE MAY BE SAFELY PRESUMED TO HAVE INTENDED WHAT THE WORDS PLA INLY SAY. THE PLAIN WORDS CAM BE DEPARTED FROM WHEN READING THEN AS THE Y ARE LEADS TO PATENT INJUSTICE, ANOMALY OR ABSURDITY OR INVALIDAT ION OR A LAW [BHAIJI VS SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (2003) 1 SCC 692, 700]. ALSO , THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT, DEPARTURE FROM TH E WORDS OR THE RULE IS LEGITIMATE ONLY IN SUCH CASES WHERE LITERAL CONS TRUCTION MAY RESULT IN DEPRIVING CERTAIN EXISTING WORKS OF ALL MEANING OR TO AVOID ANY PART OF THE STATUTE BECOMING MEANINGLESS OR OTIOSE. THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S TEJASINGH 35 ITR 408, HAS L AID DOWN A CARDINAL PRINCIPAL THAT THE COURSE WILL HAVE TO REJECT THE C ONSTRUCTION WHICH WILL DEFEAT THE PLAIN INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE, EVEN THO UGH, THERE MAY BE SOME INEXACTITUDE IN THE LANGUAGE USED. IT IS A WEL L SETTLED DOCTRINE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE THAT A PURPOSIVE CONSTRUC TION OF AN ENACTMENT IS ONE WHICH GIVES EFFECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOS E BY- (A) FOLLOWING THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE ENA CTMENT WHERE THAT MEANING IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE PURPO SE, OR (B) APPLYING A STRAINED MEANING WHERE THE LI TERAL MEANING IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO LAID DOWN THE CA RDINAL PRINCIPAL IN THE CASE OF HARSHAD SHANTILAL MEHTA VS CUSTODIAN 23 1 ITR 871, 886 THAT; THE COURTS MUST LOOK TO THE OBJECT WHICH THE STATUTE SEEKS TO ACHIEVE WHILE INTERPRETING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. A PURPOSIVE APPROACH OF INTERPRETING THE ACT IS NECESSARY. IF T WO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, ONE EFFECTUATES THE PURPOSE OF INTENDMENT OF PROVIS IONS AND THE OTHER FRUSTRATES IT, THE FORMER MUST BE PREFERRED. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO HAVE A PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION WITH A VIEW TO EFF ECTUATE THE PURPOSE AND THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION [PRIYAVRA T MEHTA VS AMRENDU BANERJEE AIR 1997 (PAT) 114-120 (FB)]. SIMILARLY, I T IS ALSO A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT, STATUTES MUST BE INT ERPRETED TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF STATUTE AND NOT TO DEFEAT IT. SIMILARLY, I N THE CASE OF GOODYEAR INDIA LTD VS STATE OF HARYANA 188 ITR 402, 440, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT, THE RULE OF REASONABLE CONSTRU CTION MUST BE APPLIED WHILE CONSTRUING A STATUTE. LITERAL CONSTRUCTION SH OULD BE AVOIDED, IF IT DEFEATS THE MANIFEST OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE WELL KNOWN WORDS OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND, ONE CANNOT MAKE A FORTRESS OUT OF DICTIONARY; AND SHOULD REMEMBER THAT, STATUT E HAVE SOME PURPOSE AND OBJECT TO ACCOMPLISH WHOSE SYMPATHETIC AND IMAGINATIVE DISCOVERY IS THE SUREST GUIDE TO THEIR MEANING. THE HON'BLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJ BAHADUR ESTATES PVT LTD VS CCIT 337 ITR 425 HAS HELD THAT, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A STATUT ORY PROVISION SHOULD BE INTERPRETED REASONABLY AND NOT IN MANNER THAT MAKES THE PROVISION ABSURD AND UNWORKABLE.' ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 7 IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND EXPLANATION, IT WAS NOT CORRECT ON THE PART OF AO TO REJECT THE CLAIM U/S.546, WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPE LLANT. THE FUND FLOW ANALYSIS IN CHART ABOVE COMPOUNDED WITH EXPLANATION BY THE APPELLANT, CLEARLY SHOW THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT AS THE CONDITIONS F OR DEDUCTION U/S.54B, IN MY OPINION, HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. IN OTHER WORDS, FOLLO WING POINTS EMERGE FROM THE DISCUSSION ABOVE: A) AS PER FUND-FLOW ANALYSIS INDICATED IN CHART ABO VE, THE FUNDS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF ORIGINAL AGRICULTURAL LAND HAVE BEEN UT ILIZED TO PURCHASE THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND. ONCE HAS TO SEE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER AND REAL CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION AS HAVE BEEN HELD IN V ARIOUS CASE LAWS. B) THE CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS CONTAINED IN THE EXPL ANATION BY THE APPELLANT, IS REALITY PREVAILING IN RURAL ECONOMY WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED IN THE DECISION MAKING. C) APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE AO HAS NOT ADVER SELY COMMENTED ON THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS TO AVAIL BENEFIT U/S.54B, IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS MORE EMPHASIZED ON THE RATI O IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) TO DENY THE B ENEFIT ON TECHNICAL GROUND. HAVING HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLIED WITH TH E CONDITIONS TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT U/S.54B, NOW I COME TO THE TECHNICAL AS PECT RAISED BY THE AO WHILE DENYING THE BENEFIT U/S.54B. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTE D THAT HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS MISPLACED AND WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE APPLICABLE POSITION OF LAW FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AN D WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SETTLED POSITION OF LAW EXPLAINED BY THE COURTS TIM E TO TIME. IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATE D THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS 1995- 96 WHEN LANGUAGE APPEARING IN SECTION 143(3) WAS '.....DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY HIM'. IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO ASSESS INCOME BELOW THE RETURNED INCOME BECAUSE IN SUCH A SCENARIO IF INCOME WAS ASSESSED BELOW THE RETURNED INCOME THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE FORCED HIM TO GRANT REFUND FOR THE TAXES VOLUNTARILY PAID BY ASSE SSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME INCLUDING SELF ASSESSMENT TAX FOR WHICH NO AUTHORIT Y WAS GRANTED BY THE STATUTE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, SAID LANGUAGE CA ME TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1998 W.E.F. 1ST OCT, 1998 WITH THE WORDS '...DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY HIM OR REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT DUE TO H IM.' THUS, STATUTE ITSELF BY EXPRESS STATUTORY PROVISIONS AUTHORISED/ ENABLED ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT REFUND IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS IF ASSESSABLE INCOME IS BECOMES LOWER THAN THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN RETURN OF INCOME BY ASSESSEE IF SUCH ASSESSABLE INCOME IS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE A CT AND RESULTS INTO REFUND OF TAXES ALREADY PAID AT THE TIME OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME. DUE TO AMENDMENT IN THE PROVISION, THE RATIO OF THE SAID D ECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING SUBSEQUENT TO AMENDMENT UNDER THE ACT REFERRED HEREINABOVE AND, T HEREFORE, CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO OPERATION AGAINST THE APPELLANT. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO HON'BLE COURT IN THE SAID JUDGEMENT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO BAR ON THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED ON ACCOUNT OF NO N FILING OF REVISED RETURN. THE ' APPELLANT PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING CASE L AWS: (A) SNC LALVIN ACRES INC VS. ACIT 15 SOT 1 (DE LHI) ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 8 (B) CHICAGO PNEUMATIC INDIA LTD VS. DCIT 15 S OT 252 (MUMBAI) AND (C) LABH CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIES LTD. V S. ACIT IN ITA NO. 2486-2488/AHD/2003 (AHMEDABAD BENCH A) I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS (SUPRA) AND FEEL THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE FULL POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAI M WHICH IS VALID IN LAW AND WHICH WAS NOT EVEN MADE BEFORE THE AO AS PER RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS 349 ITR 336. THE HEAD NOTE OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY: - 'SECTION 251, READ WITH SECTION 254, OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - POWERS OF - ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 - WHETHER AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE BEFORE APP ELLATE AUTHORITIES ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS NO T MADE IN RETURN FILED BY IT - HELD, YES - ASSESSEE-COMPANY CLAIMED DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 43B IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF SEBI FEES OF RS. 20 LA KHS PAID - SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSEE, IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, MADE A FRESH CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OFRS. 40 LAKHS STATING THAT IT HAD MADE ANOTHER PAYMENT OF SEBI FE ES OF RS. 40 LAKHS ON 9-5-2003 WHICH PERTAINED TO PROVISIONS MADE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON PAYMENT BASIS - BO TH APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAD THEMSELVES CONSIDERED ADDITIONAL CL AIM AND ALLOWED IT - BOTH ORDERS EXPRESSLY DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS. 40 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 43B - WHETHER SINCE ERRO R IN NOT CLAIMING DEDUCTION IN RETURN OF INCOME WAS INADVERTENT AND W ITHOUT ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION AS THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT MILIT ATED AGAINST SAID FINDING, IMPUGNED ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS TO BE ALLOWED - HELD, YES [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]' THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ARE SIMILAR TO THE ONE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD [2013] 35 TAXMANN.COM 513 (GUJARAT) WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED AND THE CLAIM MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS ENTERTAINED. SIMIL AR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN I TS UNREPORTED DECISION IN CIT V. ARVIND MILLS LTD. [TAX APPEAL/1407/2011-ORDER DA TED 05/07/2012]. THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE DECI SION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT (284 ITR 323). IT HAS BE EN HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WA S NOT A BAR ON THE POWER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW A LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF HE HAD NOT FILED A REVISED RETURN FOR MAKING THAT C LAIM. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE SUBMIS SION TO GET HIS CLAIM ADMITTED U/S.54B BEFORE THE AO ITSELF. THE ISSUE WA S RAISED AGAIN DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUS SION, IT IS HELD THAT THE REVISED CLAIM FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE AO TO G ET DEDUCTION U/S.54B IS BONAFIDE AND ADMISSIBLE. AS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN HEL D THAT THE CONDITIONS TO GET DEDUCTION U/S.54B HAVE BEEN FULFILLED BY THE APPELL ANT, THE CLAIM IS ALSO ALLOWABLE ON PROCEDURAL ASPECT AS MUCH AS IT IS MAD E DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REPEATED DURING REMAND P ROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION U/S.54B CANNOT BE 'SOLELY DENIED AS T HE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 9 CLAIMED THROUGH REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FOR IMPU GNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE GROUND NO.1 & 2 OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 7. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IF THE IMPROV EMENT COST WAS NOT ALLOWABLE, ALTERNATIVELY, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ENTIRE S ALE CONSIDERATION ON PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURE LAND. THIS CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE AO BECAUSE REGISTRATION OF NEW AGR ICULTURE LAND DATED 2.11.2013 HAPPENED TO BE BEFORE THE SALE OF ORIGINA L AGRICULTURE LAND FOR WHICH SALE DEED HAS BEEN REGISTERED ON 13.1.2014, A ND EVEN NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING REVISED RE TURN. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER EXTRACTED (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT CONDITI ONS FOR ALLOWING SUCH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT HAVE BE EN FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES, THAT ASSESSEE MADE SUCH CLAIM EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS A REVISED CLAIM WAS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THA T SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A VALID REVISED RETURN, THAT WOULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTION OF SUCH CLAIM. IN ORDER TO UN DERSTAND LEGITIMACY OF THE INVESTMENT, THE LD.CIT(A) ANALYSISED FUND FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE LD.CIT( A) AT PAGE NO.19 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ON DATE WISE ANALYSIS OF THE SAME, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS UTILIS ED SALES CONSIDERATION OF OLD LAND FOR PURCHASE OF NEW AGRIC ULTURE LAND, AND PRIMA FACIE COMPLIED WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 54B, AND THE REFORE, PURCHASE PRICE I.E. INVESTMENT IN NEW LAND OF RS.2, 70,00,000 BEING MORE THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OF RS.2,6 7,50,000/-, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY NECESSITY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE TO P ROVE COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO BAR ON THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH THE AO DENIED ON ACCOU NT OF NON-FILING OF REVISED RETURN. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE LD.CIT(A) RE LIED UPON VARIOUS ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 10 AUTHORITATIVE JUDGMENTS AS MENTIONED IN HIS ABOVE F INDING. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE FROM FACTUA L AS WELL AS LEGAL ANGLE AND ARRIVED AT A JUST CONCLUSION, WHICH CANNO T BE SAID TO BE INCORRECT OR UNJUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, O UR INTERFERENCE IS NOT CALLED FOR ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS UPHELD. GROUND NO .1 OF REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 8. NEXT GROUND IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.77,86,500/- MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56 (2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT. 9. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.03.2016 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME AT RS.8,04,770/- WHICH WAS REVISED ON THE SAME DATE FO R RS.14,64,220/-. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143( 2) OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE TELAV, SANAND, DIST.AHMEDABAD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,70,00,00 0/-. AS PER THE JANTRI RATE, THE VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS OF RS.3,4 7,86,500/- ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID STAMP DUTY OF RS.17,15, 000/-. THE LD.AO ASSUMED THAT DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.77,86,500/- I.E. THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,70,00,000/- MINUS JANTRI RATE OF THE PROPERTY OF RS.3,47,86,500/- WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT. THE LD.AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 6.12.2016 TO THE A SSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THER E WAS SOME ENCUMBRANCE IN THE SAID PROPERTY, AND THEREFORE IN ORDER TO REMOVE SUCH ENCUMBRANCE AND GET CLEAR TITLE, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF RS.70.00 LAKHS TO ONE SMT.SUB HNABEN BEFORE 2022, FOR THAT AN UNDERSTANDING TO THIS EFFECT WAS ARRIVED BETWEEN THE ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 11 PARTIES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED A N NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS DATED 12.9.2013 AND DECEMBER, 2013 BY WHICH AN AMOU NT OF RS.70,00,000/- AGREED TO BE PAID TO SUBHANBEN HAJIB HAI BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPENSATION IN THE LIGHT OF MOU ENTERE D ON 5.1.2006. HOWEVER, THE LD.AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND OBSERVED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE CLAIM OF THE SAID SUBHNABEN ON THE SAID PROPERTY, T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED, AND THEREFORE HE MA DE AN ADDITION OF RS.77,86,500/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VAL UE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, AND PURCHASE CONSIDERATI ON SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VI I)(B). AGAINST THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD .FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE LD.CIT(A) THAT NO COMPARABLE INSTANCE WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT JANTRI RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO WAS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND PURCHASED. THE LD.AO OUGHT TO H AVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, IF THE PURCHASE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AC CEPTABLE TO THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THREE COMPARAB LE INSTANCES BELONGED TO NEARBY AREA TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VAL UE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE CLOSE TO THE MARKET RATE. THE LD.CIT(A) H AS NOTICED THOSE COMPARABLE INSTANCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN H IS ORDER ON PAGE NO.28 AND FOUND THAT THE RATE FOR THE TRANSACTION I N THAT AREA SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSEES TRANSACTION SHOULD HAV E BEEN AT HIGHER RATE, AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF PA YMENT IN CASH IN EXCESS OF THE ALLEGED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO RECORDED A FINDING THAT DESPITE OBJECTION FROM THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY T HE COMPARABLE CASES, THE LD.AO DID NOT REFER THE MATTER TO DVO AN D DID NOT EVEN DISPUTE SUCH COMPARABLE INSTANCES. THE LD.CIT(A) A CCORDINGLY DELETED ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 12 ADDITION OF RS.77,86,500/- MADE UNDER SECTION 56(2) (VII)(B) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS DELETION, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. 10. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES SUPPORTED THE RESPE CTIVE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISRE GARDED BY THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING AND REFERRING THE MATTER TO TH E DVO TO ASCERTAIN FMV ON THE DATE OF SALE. THE LD. AO PROCEEDED IN M ECHANICAL MANNER AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY OR VERIFICATION. 11. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND TH AT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE ON TWO COUNTS. FIRSTLY, AFTER CONSIDERING COMPARABLE INSTANCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A LSO REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO, THE LD.CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE R ATE FOR THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE AREA REGISTERED SUBSEQUENT TO T HAT OF THE ASSESEES TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT HIGHER RATES AS PER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO POSSIBILI TY OF PAYMENT IN CASH IN EXCESS OF PURCHASE PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT COMPARABLE CASES FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO IN HIS REM AND REPORT, AND THEREFORE, NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE AO ON T HIS COUNT. SECONDLY, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THA T WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION, THEN THE LD.AO OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRE D THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS CONTE MPLATED UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT (A) HAS MADE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE MATTER AND BASED ON THE EV IDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE, ARRIVED AT A JUST CONCLUSION THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL BEFORE US TO ITA NO.1175/AHD/2018 13 BETTER THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AND TO TAKE A DIFFER ENT VIEW THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS UPHELD . 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2020 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MS.MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER