K. Chandrakala, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-6(5), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1354/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6265 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 142(1); 148; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1354/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYDERABAD. PAN ADFPK 0225K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MALLAHA RAO SHRI S.S. SURYANARAYANA RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING 18-07-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT -07-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) - VI, HYD ERABAD FOR AY 2009-10. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2009-10 ON 29 /01/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,12,337/-. DURING THE FY 2008 -09, ASSESSEE, SRI K. RAMASWAMY AND 12 OTHERS HAD JOINTLY SOLD 18 ACRE S OF LAND IN SURVEY NO. 111, 112 & 155 AT KOMPALLI VILLAGE, QUTU BULLAPUR MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT ON 30/10/2008 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4.50 CRORES. ASSESSEE COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) AT RS. 52,46,118/-. OUT OF HER SHARE IN THE ABOVE TRANSACTION, CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961) (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE RETURN WAS 2 ITA NO. 1354/H/15 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYD. PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT BY ACCEPTING THE RE TURN OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO, THE ACTUAL MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE SR O IS AT RS. 14.76 CRORES, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 4.5 CRORES. THE AO OPINED THAT AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERA TION TO BE TAKEN AT THE VALUE OF SRO VALUE OR SALE CONSIDERATION, WHICH EVER IS HIGHER. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. LATER, NOTICES U/S 143(2 ) AND 142(1) WERE ALSO ISSUED. 2.1 THE AO WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT NOTED THAT IN TH E CASE OF SRI K. RAMASWAMY (ONE OF THE COOWNER OF THE PROPERTY), ASSESSMENT WAS DONE IN HIS CASE BY ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE DETER MINED BY SRO AS DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION U/S 50C OF THE ACT (AT TH AT POINT OF TIME, DVO VALUATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE). THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 5,16,240/- WAS ALSO REJECTED. MR. RAMASWAMY APPEALED AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER BEFORE C IT(A), BUT, CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: HOWEVER, IN OUR VIEW, SECTION 50C BEING A DEEMING PROVISION, ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT SALE CONSIDE RATION SHOWN BY HIM IS THE ACTUAL FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DA TE OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA ON 30/10/2008. ON A PE RUSAL OF REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT P AGE 4 OF ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK, SHOWS THAT VALUE OF RS. 26.5 0 LAKH PER ACRE ADOPTED BY HIM IS PURELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS WIT HOUT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY, DVO'S VALUATI ON AT RS. 43.4 LAKHS PER ACRE IS ALSO ON ESTIMATE ONLY. NEITH ER THE ASSESSEE THE DEPARTMENT HAS BROUGHT ANY SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THEM. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTIONS BU T TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY FOR ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND EXAMINING ALL MATERIALS O N RECORD, STILL, IF THERE ARE NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THE ACTUAL FAI R MARKET VALUE OF 3 ITA NO. 1354/H/15 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYD. THE PROPERTY AS ON THE RELEVANT DATE THEN THE AO MA Y ESTIMATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET REASONABLY BY TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS, HOWEVER, WE M AKE IT CLEAR THAT IN NO CASE THE FMV SHOULD EXCEED THE VAL UATION MADE BY THE OVA. THE AO MUST AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISS UE. 2.2 AO MADE ENQUIRIES AND FOUND THAT THE PREVAILING RATE PER ACRE IN 2008 WAS RS. 50 LAKHS, WHICH AGGREGATES TO RS. 9 CRORES. AS THE DVO REPORTED THE VALUATION OF RS. 7,78,21,000/-, AO TOOK THE SAME TO BE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AND COMPUTED LTCG AT RS. 96,63,095/-. 2.3 IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO CONTEST ONLY ON FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE WILL DEAL ONLY WITH THIS ISSUE. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERR ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF TO ASSESSEE AS BELOW: 07.4. COMING TO THE QUANTUM OF FULL VALUE OF CONSI DERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO WHICH IS MUCH BELOW THE SRO VALUE. THE D VO CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE'S OBJECTIONS AND DETERMINED THE VALUE MUCH BELOW THE SRO VALUE AND ALLOWED FURTHER DISCOU NT OF 5%. HE ADOPTED THE FMV AT RS.43.42 LAKHS PER ACRE. BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE MOU HAD BEEN ENTERED ON 01.11.2007 AN D PART CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED ON AND AFTER THAT D ATE. EVEN THOUGH TRANSFER CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON THAT DATE, IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE BE EN FIXED THEN. THE DVO IN HIS REPORT NOTED THAT THE SRO VALUE AS O N 01.01.2007 WAS RS.35 LAKHS PER ACRE AND AS ON 01.01 .2008, IT WAS RS.60 LAKHS PER ACRE. IF THE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 01.11.2007, THE SRO VALUE WOULD HAVE BEEN RS.35 LAK HS PER ACRE. CONSIDERING THAT TRANSFER DID NOT TAKE PLACE, BUT THE VALUE HAD BEEN DETERMINED AND ALSO CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED T O ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR DELAY IN REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY , IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HOLD THE SRO VALUE AS ON 01.11.2007 AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES . CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED ABOV E, IT WOULD 4 ITA NO. 1354/H/15 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYD. BE REASONABLE TO HOLD THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATI ON OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.35 LAKHS PER ACRE AS A AGAINST RS.25 LAKHS PER ACRE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AND RS. 43.42 LAKHS PER ACRE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 07.5 NO DOUBT, THE SRO VALUE WENT UP SUBSTANTIALLY BETWEEN THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND THE DATE OF REGISTERED AGREEM ENT. BUT, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS DUE TO HER AT THE TIME OF MOU. THE GENUINENESS OF THE MOU IS N OT QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL PART OF PAYMENTS W ERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES THE DETAILS OF WHIC H ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) DATED 15-09-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT P ERIOD 2009-10 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSID ERATION AT RUPEES THIRTY FIVE LAKHS AS AGAINST RUPEES TWENTY F IVE LAKHS AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, THE APPELLANT FILED RETURNS ALONG WITH COMPUTATION STATEMENTS FOR CLAIM OF CAPI TAL GAIN ARE GENUINE. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT OF THE CASE, CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT OF THE CASE AND FURNISHED 3 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF APPELLA NT. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FURNISHED DOCUMENTS, THE CIT (APPEA LS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY IS NOT CORRECT. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF TAX PA RTLY AND LEVIED INTEREST AND PENALTY IS EXCESSIVE AND ARBITRARY AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED SUBSTANTIALLY. 6. FOR SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND IT IS PRAYS THAT KINDLY MAY ALLOW THE A PPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 5 ITA NO. 1354/H/15 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYD. 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US T HAT THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER 13 CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY SOL D THE PROPERTY BY ENTERING INTO MOU BY DETERMINING THE FULL SALE CONS IDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 4.5 CRORES (RS. 25 LAKHS PER ACRE). HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVE D SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT AS ADVANCE AND AGREED FOR THE SALE CONSIDERA TION AS STATED ABOVE. DURING THE SAME YEAR, THE MARKET VALUE OF TH E LAND WAS INDEXED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS BELOW: AS ON 01/01/2008 RS. 60 LAKHS PER ACRE AS ON 01/08/2008 RS. 82 LAKHS PER ACRE THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IS SITUA TED IN THE AREA OF WATER BODY (FAK SAGAR LAKE WAS NOT FIT FOR AGRICULT URE) AND THERE IS PENDING FAMILY LITIGATION IN THE PAST LEADING TO DI STRESS SALE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT RS. 50 LAKHS PER ACRE BASED ON THE MARKET VALUE PREVAILING, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A ) HAS DETERMINED THE SALE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT RS. 35 LAKHS PER ACRE, WHICH IS THE SRO VALUE AS AT 01/01/2007, WHICH IS ALSO THE MARKE T VALUE. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED ONLY RS. 25 LAKH PER ACRE CONSIDERING THE DISTRESS SALE AS SUBMITTED ABOVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATIO N OF CAPITAL GAINS, IS THE PROPER SALE CONSIDERATION, IT MAY BE CONFIRMED . LD. AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE FOLLOWING TWO CASE LAWS: 5.1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAHSA CONSTRUCTIONS PV T. LTD., [2013] 357 ITR 671(DELHI), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD A S UNDER: WHETHER AN ADDITION CAN BE MADE SOLELY AND ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND IS COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS CO URT IN CIT V. S. K. CONSTRUCTION CO. [2008] 167 TAXMAN 171 (DELHI), CIT V. NAVEEN CERA [2010] 328 ITR 516 (DELHI), CIT V. SMT. SURAJ DEVI [2010] 328 ITR 604 (DELHI) AND CIT V. BAJRANG LAL B ANSAL [2011] 335 ITR 572 (DELHI). IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD TH AT ADDITION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED SOLELY RELYING UPON THE VALUATI ON REPORT. THE 6 ITA NO. 1354/H/15 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYD. DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. P. VARGHESE V. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. 5.2. IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO, ERNAKUL AM AND ANOTHER., 131 ITR 597 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD A S UNDER: 18. WE MUST, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT SUB-S. (2) OF S. 52 CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHERE THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER HAS BEEN U NDERSTATED BY THE ASSESSEE OR, IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONSIDERATION ACTU ALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN WHAT IS DECLARED OR DISCLOSED BY HIM AND THE BURDEN OF PROVING SUCH AN UNDERSTATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT IS ON THE REVENUE. THIS BURDEN MAY BE DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE BY ESTABLIS HING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH A REASONABLE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CORRECTLY DECLARED OR DISCLOSED TH E CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM AND THERE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT O F THE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER. SUB- S. (2) HAS NO APPLICA TION IN THE CASE OF AN HONEST AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTION WHERE THE CONSIDERATION R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DECLARED OR DISCLOSED BY HIM, AN D THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OR SUPPRESSION OF THE CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT I N THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS NOT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND FIVE OF HIS CHILDREN FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE SUM OF RS. 16,500 SHOWN TO BE THE CON SIDERATION FOR THE PROPERTY IN THE INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER AND THERE WA S AN UNDERSTATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT OF THE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER. IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THAT WAS A FINDING O F FACT REACHED BY THE IT AUTHORITIES THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS A PERFECTLY HONEST AND BONA FIDE TRANSACTION WHERE THE FULL VAL UE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECTLY DISCLOSED AT THE FIGURE OF RS. 16,500. THEREFORE, ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY US, SUB-S. (2) HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ITO COULD HAVE NO REASON T O BELIEVE THAT ANY PART OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT S O AS TO JUSTIFY THE ISSUE OF A NOTICE UNDER S. 148. THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ITO PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S. 148 WAS ACCO RDINGLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE MAJORITY JUDGES OF THE FULL BE NCH WERE IN ERROR IN REFUSING TO QUASH IT. 19. WE, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE O RDER PASSED BY THE FULL BENCH AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF ISAAC J., ALLOWING T HE WRIT PETITION AND QUASHING THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ITO. THE REVENUE WILL PAY THE COSTS OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT( A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE PROPERLY A ND ESTIMATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION ON A REASONABLE BASIS. HE ALSO S UBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF K. P. VARGHESE (SUPRA), WHICH WAS DECLARED IN THE YEAR 1981 BY THE HONBLE SUPREME 7 ITA NO. 1354/H/15 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYD. COURT, THEREFORE, THE SAID CASE IS IRRELEVANT TO TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS SECTION 50C WAS ENACTED MUCH LATER. 7. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAHSA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). 8. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. ASSESSEE IS A JOINT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD IN FY 2008- 09 FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4.5 CRORES. (R S. 25 LAKHS PER ACRE). IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SRO HAS ADOPTED THE V ALUE OF RS. 14.76 CRORES FOR CALCULATION OF STAMP DUTY AND THE SAME W AS NOT AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THAT POINT OF TIME. IN ONE OF THE J OINT OWNER SRI K. RAMASWAMY, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HA S DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE SALE VALUE OF CO NSIDERATION AS UNDER: ON A PERUSAL OF REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT, A COP Y OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 4 OF ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK, SHOWS THAT VALUE O F RS. 26.50 LAKH PER ACRE ADOPTED BY HIM IS PURELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY, OVA'S VALUATI ON AT RS. 43.41 LAKHS PER ACRE IS ALSO ON ESTIMATE ONLY. NEIT HER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE DEPARTMENT HAS BROUGHT ANY SUBSTAN TIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THEM. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTIONS BU T TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY FOR ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND EXAMINING ALL MATERIALS O N RECORD. STILL, IF THERE ARE NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THE ACTUAL FAI R MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE RELEVANT DATE THEN THE AO MA Y ESTIMATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET REASONABLY BY TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS. HOWEVER, WE M AKE IT CLEAR THAT IN NO CASE THE FMV SHOULD EXCEED THE VAL UATION MADE BY THE DVO. THE AO MUST AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISS UE.' 8.1 BASED ON THE ABOVE DIRECTION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED DVOS VALUATION AT RS. 43.41 LAKHS PER ACRE. THE SA ME WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS DET ERMINED RS. 35 8 ITA NO. 1354/H/15 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYD. LAKHS PER ACRE AGAINST RS. 25 LAKHS PER ACRE DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS. 43.41 LAKHS PER ACRE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ANALYSED THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSEE BEFORE GIVING RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. AS PER THE FACTS SUBMITTED BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAS DEC LARED THE VALUE OF RS. 25 LAKHS, AT THE SAME TIME, SRO VALUE EXISTED A T THE TIME OF REGISTRATION WAS RS. 82 LAKHS PER ACRE, WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT PROTESTED BEFORE THE SRO. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS ENT ERED INTO MOU AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER AS ON 01/01/2007 AND T OOK SUBSTANTIAL VALUE AS ADVANCE I.E. AGREED RATE OF RS. 25 LAKHS P ER ACRE, BUT, THE TRANSFER OF LAND AND REGISTRATION WAS DONE IN FY 20 08-09. SINCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS ON 01/01/2007, ON THE SAME DATE, SRO VALUE EXISTED RS. 35 LAKHS PER ACRE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) READ AS UND ER: 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING A S A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE AD OPTED OR ASSESSED 16 [OR ASSESSABLE] BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO A S THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY' ) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT O F STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR A SSESSED 16 [OR ASSESSABLE] SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. 8.2. BASED ON THE ABOVE DEFINITION, WHEN THE SRO VA LUE IS HIGHER COMPARED TO THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, SRO VALUE HAS TO BE ADOPTED. IN THIS CASE, SRO VALUE WAS RS. 35 LAKH S, WHILE, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROTEST BEFORE THE STAM P DUTY AUTHORITIES FOR ADOPTING THE HIGHER VALUE. THEREFORE, WE ARE IN CLINED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TH IS ISSUE. 9. WITH REGARD TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAHSA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. (SUPR A), THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND THE SAME WAS DECLINED TO ENTERTAIN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT BY HOLDIN G THAT ADDITION 9 ITA NO. 1354/H/15 K. CHANDRAKALA, HYD. CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED SOLELY RELYING UPON THE VALUATI ON REPORT. WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADOPTED DVO VALUE AND ADOPTED THE SRO VALUE AS ON 01/01/2007. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE FACTS OF TH E SAID CASE, HENCE, THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH JULY, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) K. CHANDRAKALA, W/O OF LATE K. SHANKAR YADAV, 8.3-165/B/2/1, ERRAGADDA, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD 6(5), INCOME TAX TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYD. 3) CIT(A) - VI, HYDERABAD 4)PR. CIT - 6 , HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T ., HYD ERABAD.