SMT. BINA WADHWA, AGRA V. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

ITA 147/AGR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8853 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Valuation report; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 50C; 148; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 LATE SMT. BINA WADHWA, (THROUGH L/H. RAHUL WADHWA), 29, NIKHIL GARDEN, TAJ NAGRI, PHASE-II, AGRA. (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AGRA. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAJESH MALHOTRA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. DR ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 30.11.2017 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1.1. BECAUSE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON ASPECTS AGITATED IN APPEAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THEIR RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 1.2. BECAUSE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS VALID, WHICH IS HIG HLY PERVERSE, WRONG, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 1.3BECAUSE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE R EASONS RECORDED BY THE LD AO ARE BASED ON MERE SUSPICION AND VAGUE, HENCE NOT VALID. DATE OF HEARING 12.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 .09.2019 ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 2 1.4BECAUSE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 IS WRONG, ILLEGAL, PERVERS E AND BAD IN LAW. 2.1 BECAUSE THE LD CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2558900/- (BEING STAMP VALUE OF LAND) ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT DATED 24/08/2017 ISSUED BY AVO, WHICH IS NOT A VALUATION REPORT AS PER LAW AS THE AVO HAS NOT EVENT VISITED THE PLACE WHERE THE PROPE RTY WAS LOCATED NOR HAS DONE ANY ENQUIRY/ INVESTIGATION BEFORE ISSUING VALUATION REPORT. 2.2. BECAUSE THE AVO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SUB SECTIONS (2),(3),(4),(5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSES (I) OF SUB SECTION (1) AND SUB SECTION (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 A S APPLICABLE ON VALUER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHEN MATTER IS REFERRED TO VALUATION OFFICER FOR VALUATION. 2.3 BECAUSE THE AVO HAS NOT ACTED JUDICIALLY AND FA IRLY, RATHER ACTED ARBITRARILY AND ALSO DID NOT CONFORM TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE IN ISSUING VALUATION REPORT. THIS IS QUITE EVIDENT FROM THE VALUATION REP ORT DATED 24/08/2017 THAT THE AVO HAS ACTED CASUALLY, MECHANICALLY AND WITHOU T PROPER APPLICATION OF THE MIND. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTE D AS THE SAID GROUNDS ARE LEGAL IN NATURE AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF NTPC V. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) AND JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. CIT, 187 ITR 688 (SC). THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED ARE TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 3 1. BECAUSE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN APP ROVAL OF LD CIT-1, AGRA FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6), EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSING ORDER, AND NO APPROVAL HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, HENCE REOPENING OF CASE WITHOUT VALID APPROVAL OF JOINT COMMISSIONER IS BAD IN LAW. 2- BECAUSE AS PER SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 151 NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER, UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE R EASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE IS SUE OF SUCH NOTICE. NO SUCH APPROVAL AS REQUIRED AS PER SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 151 H AS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE THE REOPENING, IN THE ABSENCE OF APP ROVAL IS BAD IN LAW. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WE RE NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISE BEFORE US HAS MIXED QUESTIONS OF FACTS AND LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE THESE GROUNDS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAS SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO APPR OVAL WAS SOUGHT FROM THE JCIT AND HENCE, THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW U/S. 151 OF THE A CT. FOR URGING THE ABOVE SAID GROUND, IT WAS ESSENTIAL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ON RECORD SOME COGENT MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO APPROVAL, INADEQUATE APPROVA L OR WRONG APPROVAL. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE BY WAY OF ANY EV IDENCE THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS A ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 4 CASE OF NO APPROVAL. IN OUR VIEW THIS TRIBUNAL, BEI NG THE FINAL FACT FINDING BODY AND IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE USED AS A FORUM TO COLLECT TH E EVIDENCES FOR ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ON RECORD SOME EVIDENCE/DOCUM ENTS TO SHOW THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOU T ANY APPROVAL. SINCE NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND ONLY GENERAL AND VAG UE STATEMENT BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL QUESTION OF LAW WAS FILED BEFORE US, THE REFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS KIND OF ADDITIONAL GROUND CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE RAISED. FOR THIS PURPOSE WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. V. CIT, 217 TIOL 784. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE DISALLOW THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BE FORE US. 5. GROUNDS NOS. 1.1 TO 1.4 PERTAIN TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS HAS NOT SERIOUSLY URGED THE SAME. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTE NTION TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 18.07. 2012 WERE WITHIN FOUR YEARS AND THE OBJECTIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED RETURN IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148. SAID OBJECTIONS O F THE ASSESSEE WERE DISPOSED OF BY ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF SPEAKING ORDER ON 1 8.09.2012. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE OBJECTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ONCE D ISPOSED OF, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO IMPROVE UPON THE OBJECTIONS ON THE GROU NDS BEFORE US. IN THIS REGARD, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED THIS ISSU E, WE DO NOT WIDH TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH NO. 11.1 HAD DECIDED THESE OBJECTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 11.1. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CITED MANY JUDICIAL PRECEDEN TS IN ORDER TO ARGUE THAT THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT LEGALLY VALID. NO FAC TS TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS ARGUMENT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE INITIATION OF R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS FAIR AND LEGAL. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT SECT ION 50C BEING A DEEMING SECTION, CANNOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATI NG REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN MY OPINION, IS NOT CORRECT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NOS. 1.1 TO 1.4 ARE DISMISSED. 7. GROUNDS NOS. 2.1 TO 2.3 ARE ON MERITS. THE ASSES SEE, SMT. BINA WADHVA FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME AT RS.1,59,57 0/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS SHOWN AS RS.81,799/- AND INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.89,6 53/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 AND PROVIDED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING. THEREFORE, THE REPLY WAS SOUGHT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THE ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 6 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.38, 18,000/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING THE STAMP VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS SALE CONS IDERATION. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE AVO. HOW EVER, ON ACCOUNT OF NON- COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DETERMINED THE VALUE ON THE BASIS OF STAMP VALUATION OF PROPERTY. 8. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILE D THE VALUATION REPORT ON 16.06.2019 AND HAS CALCULATED THE VALUE OF THE PROP ERTY AT RS.10,85,869/-. IT WAS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF GETTING THE PROPERTY REGISTERED HAD MENTIONED THE VALUATION REPORT IN TH E SALE DEED AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK (SALE DEED) WHERE THE VALUATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT RS.10,85,869/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID VALUATION WAS CALCULATED BY THE APPROVED VALUER AFTER CONSIDERING THAT THE PROPERTY BEING OLD AND THERE ARE FIVE TENANTS IN THE PROPERTY. OUR ATTENTI ON WAS DRAWN TO THE VALUATION REPORT AND IN THE VALUATION REPORT, THE VALUE OF GR OUND FLOOR WAS CALCULATED ON THE RENT REALIZATION METHOD. AT SL. NO. 39, THE LAND RA TE ADOPTED WAS MENTION AS RS.14000/- PER SQ. MTR. FOR GROUND FLOOR AND RS. 70 00/- PER SQ. MTR. FOR OTHER FLOORS WITHOUT GROUND FLOOR. AFTER RECEIVING THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAD SENT THE COPY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HO HAS FURNISHED THE VALUATION ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 7 REPORT OF THE AVO VIDE LETTER DATED 31.08.2017. IN THE REPORT DATED 24.08.2017 IT IS MENTIONED AS UNDER : KINDLY REFER TO LETTER CITED ABOVE VIDE WHICH IT W REQUESTED TO SUBMIT THE VALUATION REPORT OF ABOVE SAID PROPERTY. IN THIS CO NTEXT SH. RAHUL WADHWA THE SON OF ASSESSEE SMT. BEENA WADHWA (DECEASED ASSESSE E) HAD SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT(COPY ENCLOSED) TO THIS OFFICE THAT THE TH E SAID BUILDING HAD ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED BY THE BUYER AND THE BUILDING WHICH WAS SOLD IS NOT AVAILABLE AT PRESENT. CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT THIS OFFICE IS N OT IN THE POSITION TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF BUILDING. AS FAR AS VALUE OF LAND IS C ONCERNED, LAND VALUE CAN BE TAKEN AS PREVAILING CIRCLE RATE OF LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) RELYING UPON THE REPORT OF AVO SU BMITTED IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAD DECIDED THE MATTER BY COMPUTING LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.41,58,903/- INSTEAD OF RS.54,18,000/- (PARA 11.4 ). 10. THE LD. AR HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE AVO IN HIS RE PORT DATED 24.08.2017 HAD TAKEN THE CIRCLE RATE OF LAND WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROCEDURE FOR VALUATION AND HAD FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BUILDING AT THE TIME OF SALE WAS UNDER THE POSSESSION OF THE TENANTS AND THE TENANTS WERE NOT VACATING THE P ROPERTY AND THEREFORE, IT WAS A DISTRESS SALE. THEREFORE, THE VALUE OF THE LAND CA NNOT BE TAKEN AS PER CIRCLE RATE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE MATTER OF RAJ ESH MANCHANDA, THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 HAD REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE DVO FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 7 TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 8 7.IT IS, THUS, SEEN THAT AS PER THE DVOS LETTER, WHICH HAS BEEN ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE A TO THE DVOS FINAL REPORT, THE RECORD AN D DETAILS OF THE INQUIRIES MADE BY THE DVO WERE NOT MAINTAINED. IT HAS NOT BEE N SHOWN AS TO HOW IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE TO DO SO AND AS TO HOW IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE GUIDELINES FOR VALUATION. AS SUCH, IF ANY INQUIRIES WERE MADE, SIN CE THE RESULT THEREOF WERE TO BE UTILIZED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THESE ALLEGED INQUIR IES HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE, THE RESULTS THEREOF OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, BEEN NECESS ARILY CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAD SUBMITTED THA T ONLY PART OF THE GROUND FLOOR WAS LET OUT, I.E., OUT OF TOTAL SIX SHOPS, FIVE SHO PS WERE LET OUT AND ONE SHOP WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE OWNER. BESIDES, THE POSSESSION OF ONE SHOP AT GROUND FLOOR, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR OF THE PROPERTY. HE HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS WERE SHOWN TO BE IN POSSESS ION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED IN A COMMERCIAL AREA AND THEREFORE, THE VALUATION TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 13.07.2009, IT IS MENTI ONED AT PAGE 19 THAT THERE ARE SIX SHOPS IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA OF 65.64 SQ. MTR AND T HE REMAINING AREA IS RESIDENTIAL. FURTHER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT AS PER THE COLLECTOR OFFICE OF AGRA, THE RATE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IS 54000/- PER SQ. MTR VALUING TO RS.35,44,560/- WHEREAS FOR ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 9 THE RESIDENTIAL AREA OF 24.99 SQ. MTR, THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AT THE CIRCLE RATE OF RS.12000/- PER SQ. MTR IS OF RS.3,11,880/-. THUS, T HE TOTAL VALUE CALCULATED BY THE STAMP VALUER WAS RS.38,56,440/- FOR THE VALUE OF CO MMERCIAL LAND AND RS.15,61,170/- FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. IF WE LOOK INTO THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCO UNT THE VALUE OF COMMERCIAL AREA AND HAD ONLY APPLIED THE RATE AT RS.14000/- PER SQ. MTR. IN OUR VIEW, ONCE THE AREA WAS COMMERCIAL THEN THE RATE OF COMMERCIAL AREA ARE REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED AND FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, CORRESPONDING CIRCLE RATES AR E REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTRADICT THE FINDIN G RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. MERELY FILING THE REPORT BY REGISTERED VALUER IS NOT SUFFICIENT AND WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ONLY THE COS T OF LAND AS PER THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE CIRCLE RATE OF PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO BE FACTORED IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE TENANTS W ERE IN POSSESSION OF GROUND FLOOR (FIVE SHOPS). HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE US SHOWING THAT ANY EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE PROPERTY VACAT ED BY ISSUING LEGAL NOTICES OR BY TAKING ANY LEGAL RECOURSE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPOR TING DOCUMENTS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT THE SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS O N ACCOUNT OF DISTRESS SALE AND THE TENANTS WERE NOT VACATING THE PROPERTY. EVEN WH EN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRITTEN A LETTER AND THE REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E AVO ON 24.08.2017, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL POSSESSION AND WAS DEMOLISHED ITA NO. 147/AGR/2018 10 BY THE BUYER. AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE SALE DE ED WAS EXECUTED BY ASSESSEE ON 13.07.2009 AND THE REPORT WAS GIVEN BY THE AVO ON 2 4.08.2017. THUS, THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF 8 YEARS BETWEEN THE DATE OF SALE AND THE REPORT OF THE AVO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR VIEW, SOME ELEMENT OF DISCOUNT IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE AVO RELYING UPON THE CO MMERCIAL CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RE MAND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO MAKE THE LOCAL ENQU IRIES OR DIRECT THE DVO TO MAKE LOCAL ENQUIRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT ON THE COMMERCIAL LAND VALUE WHEN PROPERTY(FIVE SHOPS) WERE POSSESSED BY THE TEN ANTS IN THE GROUND FLOOR OR IS IN POSSESSION OF THE OWNER AT FIRST, SECOND AND THI RD FLOOR. ABOVE SAID EXERCISE BE DONE BY THE CIT(A) PREFERABLY BEFORE 30.03.2010. TH E DVO WHILE FINALIZING THE REPORT BASED ON THE ABOVE PARAMETER, IF FIND OUT AN Y COMPARABLE INSTANCE OR OTHERWISE, SHALL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E AND CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY HIM. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH SEPT., 2019. SD/- SD/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH SEPT., 2019 *AKS*