Hem Raj Jain, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana

ITA 1415/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2381 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR ALYA
• Assessee Lawyers: D K GOYAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , !' , # $ % & ' , ()' BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 HEM RAJ JAIN S/O SH.PAWAN KUMAR JAIN, VALLABH WOOL INDUSTRIES, B-373, CHANDIGARH ROAD, LUDHIANA THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: AAYPJ0622M /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.K. GOYAL, ADV. ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI ANKUR ALYA, JCIT DR '# $ /DATE OF HEARING : 07.08.2018 %&'(# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.11.2018 (* /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 26.07. 2017 PASSED U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME TAX AT, 1961 (IN S HORT REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS T HE SECOND ROUND BEFORE I.T.A.T. AND THE SOLE ISSUE RELATES TO THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF PROPERTY. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS REPRODUCED AT PARA 3 OF THE C IT(A)S ORDER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD B EEN FRAMED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR U/S 14 3(3) OF THE ACT MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CA PITAL ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 2 GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF PROPERTY BY ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.45 LA CS AS AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSE E AT RS.30 LACS. THIS WAS DONE FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. FO UND THAT THERE WAS CUTTING IN THE SALE DEED AND THE FIGURE O RIGINAL TYPED AT RS.45 LACS HAD BEEN CHANGED TO RS.30 LACS MANUALLY AND THE CUTTING HAD NOT BEEN COUNTERSIGNED/ATTESTED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY. THE A.O. ALSO FOUND THAT STA MP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.45 LACS AND, THER EFORE, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PRO PERTY WAS TO BE ADOPTED AT RS.45 LACS AND NOT RS.30 LACS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE .ACCORDINGLY ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE EXTENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL SO EARNED BY THE AS SESSEE ON SALE OF PROPERTY. AGGRIEVED WITH THIS ORDER THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E A.O. THE MATTER WAS FURTHER CARRIED IN APPEAL TO THE I.T .A.T. WHO IN TURN SET ASIDE THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. DIRECTING HIM TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PURCHASER, BY ISSUING SUMMONS TO HIM AND ALSO TO VERIFY THE VALUE OF THE SALE DECLARED F OR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION UNDER THE STAMP DUTY ACT AND THEREAFTER TO ADOPT THE VALUE WHICHEVER IS HIGHER O F THE TWO, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 3. DURING SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, INFORMATION WAS CA LLED FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY, M/S AKME PROJEC TS LTD., ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 3 U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS W AS SUBMITTED SHOWING PAYMENTS OF RS.30 LACS THROUGH DD ISSUED BY CANARA BANK FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. THE A.O . ALSO CALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BAN K (IN SHORT PNB) WITH WHOM THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED WAS K EPT BY THE PURCHASER WHO SUPPLIED THE SAME COPY OF THE SAL E DEED AS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A .O. ALSO OBTAINED COPY OF THE SALE DEED DIRECTLY THROUGH SUV IDHA CENTRE WHICH WAS ALSO THE SAME. THE A.O., HOWEVER, AGAIN ADOPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AT R S.45 LACS SINCE AS PER THE A.O. THIS WAS THE VALUE ACCEPTED B Y THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT O F STAMP DUTY, THE PURCHASER HAVING PAID STAMP DUTY ON SUCH VALUE AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WERE CUTTINGS ON THE SALE DEED WHICH WERE NOT COUNTERSIGNED/ATTESTED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY. THUS THE A.O. IN THE SET ASI DE PROCEEDINGS REITERATED THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT FRAME D ON THE ISSUE. 4. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. FINDING MERIT IN T HE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD. THE RELEVANT F INDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AT PARAS 5.2 AND 5.3 ARE AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AS MADE BY HIM IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPER TY AT RS.45,00,000/- AND THEREAFTER COMPUTING TAXABLE VALUE OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.17,52,961/-. I HAVE AL SO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE THROUGH HIS LEARNED AR VIDE LETTER DATED 24.07.2017 ON THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE. I HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED ORDE R OF THE ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 4 HONORABLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH DATED 07.11.2013 VIDE WHI CH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHICH WERE TO BE FOLLOWED BY HIM BEFORE COMPLETING SET ASI DE ASSESSMENT. I HAVE AGAIN CONSIDERED THE OTHER MATER IAL PLACED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON RECORD. ON CAR EFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT HAS BEEN N OTICED THAT THE PURCHASER HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY IT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT WAS RS.30,00,000/- BUT THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUE FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AT RS.45,00,000/-. AS PER DIRECTIONS OF HONORABLE ITAT, THE HIGHER OF VALUE WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BY THE 4 PURCHASER OR WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSE E ON THE SALE OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY IN THIS CASE. I AM ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PROPER TY WILL BE RS.45,00,000/- AND NOT RS.30,00,000/-. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PURCHASER HAS INADVERTENTLY PURCHASED STAMP PAPERS IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND CANNOT BE ACCEP TED AS NO PRUDENT PERSON WILL DO THAT. I ALSO DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMEN T OF STAMP DUTY IS RS.4,78,125/-. IN FACT, ALSO CANNOT BE SAI D TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSEL F SOLD PROPERTY FOR RS.30,00,000/-. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMPUTING LONG-TER M CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.45,00,000/- IN THIS CASE AND THEREAFTER C OMPUTING THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT R S. 17,52,961- CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNJUSTIFIED. 5.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMPUTING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.45,00,000/- IN THIS CASE AND THEREAFTER COMPUTING TH E TAXABLE VALUE OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 17,52,961/-. SO, THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,52,961/- MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON A CCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY IN THIS CASE IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. IN THE RESULT GROUNDS NO. 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THAT LEARNED CIT APPEALS-2 AND A0 COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LERNED INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BEANCHES A. AS PER ORDER DATED 07.11.2013 PARA 13 @ PAGE 7 OF THE ORDER DIRECTIONS ARE CLEAR , PURCHASER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY @ RS.3000000/- AND NOT 45000 00/- WHICH THE AO DULY VERIFIED FROM THE PURCHASER. ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 5 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS 2) LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY TAKING THE S ALE VALUE OF LAND U/S 50CAMOUNTINGTO RS 4500000/- INSTEAD OF RS 3000000/- THAT THE SALE VALUE OF LAND U/S 50C IS 301AC AND NO T 451AC 3. THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IS 30 LAC WHIC H THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED. AND THE MARKET VALUE AS PER STAM P DUTY IS RS478125/-ONLY. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES' LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF . 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE DIR ECTIONS OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE FIRST ROUND, AS REPRODUCED IN T HE ORDER OF THE A.O. AT PARA 3.2, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE DIRECTIONS WERE CLEAR LY AND UNAMBIGUOUS REQUIRING THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SALE OF THE IMPUGN ED PROPERTY BY ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE PURCHASER AND TO VERIFY THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREAFTER ADOPT THE VALUE WHICHEVER IS HIGHER OF THE TWO, FOR THE P URPOSES OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS EARNED, AS PER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E THEREAFTER POINTED OUT THAT BOTH NECESSARY ENQUIRIE S HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE A.O. AND THE PURCHASER HAD VERIFIED PAYING CONSIDERATION OF RS.30 LACS FOR THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY AND COPY OF THE SALE DEED PROCURED BOTH FR OM THE BANK, WITH WHICH THE PURCHASER HAD KEPT THE SALE DE ED AND ALSO FROM SUVIDHA CENTRE, HAD CONFIRMED THE FACT TH AT THE SALE DEED FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THE CORRECT SAL E DEED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS P LACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AS UNDER: ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 6 1) ACCOUNT OF HEM RAJ IN THE BOOKS OF AKME PROJECTS LTD P.B. NO.8 2) LETTER FROM M/S PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED P.B. NO.9 3) COPY OF SALE DEED DT.19.10.2005 VASIKA NO.11612 RECEIVED FROM PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD. P.B. NO.10-26 4) SALE DEED DT.19.10.2005 P.B NO.60-76 5) TRANSLATED COPY OF SALE DEED DT.19.10.2005 P.B. NO.77-78 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HAVI NG COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE I.T.A.T. AND FI NDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE FIRST ROUND, THERE WAS NO REASON TO REITERATE THE A DDITION MADE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE PURCHASER HAD VERIFIED PAYING RS.30 LACS FOR THE PROPERTY. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED SUPPLIED BY THE PURCHASER FROM PNB AND PROCURED BY THE A.O. FROM THE SUVIDHA CENTRE ALSO H AD THE SAME CUTTINGS IN IT AS WAS PRESENT IN THE SALE DEED SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O. CONFIRMING TH E AUTHENTICITY OF THE SALE DEED ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROVING BONAFIDES OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS.30 LACS AND THE STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY PAID ON A VALUE OF RS.45 LAC S BY THE PURCHASER. 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) POINTING OUT THE FACT TH AT THE STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID ON THE CONSIDERATION MENTI ONED OF RS.45 LACS AND THE CUTTINGS IN THE DEED REPLACIN G THE FIGURE OF CONSIDERATION WITH RS.30 LACS WAS NOT ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 7 COUNTERSIGNED/ATTESTED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY AND HENCE THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BELI EVED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO GONE THROU GH THE DOCUMENTS TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN. THE IS SUE BEFORE US RELATES TO THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAI NS EARNED ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY,WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RETU RNED BY TAKING SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30 LACS,WHILE THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE FIGURE TO BE ADOPTED WAS RS. 45 LACS . THE DIRECTIONS OF THE I.T.A.T. IN FIRST ROUND, WHIL E RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE AO, WAS TO CONDUCT INQUIRIES FOR DETERMINING THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES ,FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE HIG HER OF THE TWO VALUES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE REASON FOR THE SAME WAS THAT THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND H AD CUTTINGS WITH THE FIGURE OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF R S.45 LACS BEING CUT AND REPLACED WITH RS. 30 LACS. THE SALE D EED HAD SUCH CUTTINGS AT VARIOUS PAGES, AT PAGE NO.1 OF THE REGISTRATION DEED THERE WAS A CUTTING ON RS.45 LACS AND AMOUNT AFTER CUTTING WAS RS.30 LACS. ON PAGE NO.2, INSTEAD OF BANK DRAFT THERE WAS PAY ORDER MENTIONED AND AG AIN ON THE NUMBER OF PAY ORDER THERE WAS A CHANGE. SIMILAR LY, ON PAGE 3 THE AMOUNT OF RS.30,00,000/- HAD BEEN MENTIO NED AFTER CUTTING. ON PAGE 11 THERE WAS CUTTING ON AMOU NT OF RS.30,00,000/- AND IN WORDS THERE WAS A CUTTING ON RS. ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 8 THIRTY LAKHS. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS CUTTING ON RS.22 ,50,000/- TO RS.15,00,000/- AND IN WORDS THERE WAS CUTTING OF RS.FIFTEEN LAKHS. ALL THE CUTTINGS WERE SIGNED BY T HE PURCHASER AND BUYER . ALL THE AFORESAID ARE ADMITT ED FACTS WHICH FIND MENTION IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), AND WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA 5.1 OF HIS ORDER.THE CUTTING S HOWEVER WERE NOT COUNTERSIGNED/ATTESTED BY THE REGI STERING AUTHORITY.ALSO STAMP DUTY WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PA ID AT THE VALUE OF RS. 45 LACS,WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID INADVERTENTLY. IN VIEW OF THE SAID DISCREPANCI ES ,WHICH RENDERED THE DETERMINATION OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSI DERATION AND ALSO THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DIFFI CULT ,THE AFORESTATED DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE ITAT. 10. HOWEVER ,WE FIND THAT THE INQUIRIES CONDUCTED I N THE SECOND ROUND HAVE NOT DELIVERED THE DESIRED INFORMA TION AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT IN THE FIRST ROUND. IN THE SEC OND ROUND ALSO THE COPIES OF THE SAME SALE DEED WERE FILED BE FORE THE AO ,BOTH BY THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY,M/S AKME PROJECTS LIMITED AND THE BANK WHERE THE PURCHASER H AD KEPT THE SALE DEED. THESE SALE DEEDS ALSO HAD THE S AME UNAUTHENTICATED CUTTINGS IN THEM AND WERE ON STAMP PAPER OF VALUE WHICH CORROBORATED WITH THE SALE CONSIDERA TION OF RS. 45 LACS. THE CUTTINGS ON THE COPY OF SALE DEEDS NOT AUTHENTICATED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY SUPPLEME NTED WITH THE FACT THAT STAMP DUTY WAS PAID ON THE HIGHE R SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45 LACS, CASTS DOUBTS ON THE ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 9 AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT.THE FACT THAT THE DEED WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PURCHASER OR THE BANK WHERE THE CO PY WAS KEPT BY THE PURCHASER MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AND DOES NOT MAKE THE DOCUMENT AUTHENTIC. THE SAID FACTS ALSO D O NOT LEND ANY CREDIBILITY TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE HIGHER STAMP DUTY WAS PAID INADVERTENTLY. 12. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT T HE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT IS CLEARLY NOT ESTABLI SHED AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THE VERSION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED WAS AN AUTHENTIC SALE DEED DULY REGISTERED WITH THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES.IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AUTHENTICATE SALE DEED, THE DETERMINATION OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE V ALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT IN THE FIRST ROUND, CANNOT BE LEGITIMATELY MADE. IT I S THEREFORE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE AUTHENTIC /ORIGINAL SALE DE ED BY DIRECTLY FROM THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES, CALLING FOR THE NECESSARY RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THIS REGARD. WE FIN D THAT THE AO HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROCURE A COPY OF THE SALE DEED FROM THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES BUT ,WE NOTE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED T O DO SO. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE CIT(A ) TO OBTAIN THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED FROM THE CONCERNED REVENUE/REGISTERING AUTHORITIES AND THEREAFTER DETERMINE THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AND VALUE A DOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES . THE ISSUE MAY THEREAFTER BE ITA NO.1415/CHD/2017 A.Y.2006-07 10 DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE MAY ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN THI S REGARD. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, T HEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- # $& % ' (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) +' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ()' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /DATED: 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2018 * * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. - $ / CIT 4. - $ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , #0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35' / GUARD FILE &) $ / BY ORDER, 6 ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR