SHRI SHRI RAM SARAN YADAV, BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 159/BIL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3207 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Fair market value; Capital Gains
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायप ु र न्यायपीठ, रायप ु र IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश स ू द, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़विया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.159/RPR/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shri Ram Saran Yadav, Near Nova Iron Office, Behind Civil Court, Ware House Road, Kududand, Bilaspur (C.G.) Vs ITO-1(2), Bilaspur PAN No. : AAZPY 7886 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Smt. Laxmi Sharma & Shri Vimal Agrawal, CAs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR स ु निाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 26/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A), Bilaspur, dated 20.03.2017 for the assessment year 2014-2015, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That the Id CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as in law, in not referring the matter to the DVO u/s50C(2) r.ws. 56(2)(vii)(b) for the valuation of the immovable property purchased. 2. That the Id CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as in law, in sustaining the addition of Rs.40,88,615 as income from other sources, in respect of the immovable property purchased by the assessee by applying the sec56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 3. The assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual filed return of income on 14.11.2014 declaring total income Rs.2,17,220/- along with agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/-. The return of the assessee was ITA No.159/RPR/2017 2 processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and on issuance of statutory notices by the AO, the assessee appeared and filed related documents. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee requested for referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer, however, the AO rejected the referral u/s.50C of the Act. Further the AO made various additions. 3. Against the said order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR of the assessee filed his written submission which read as under :- 1.1 In this case, the assessee has filed his ROI for AY14-15 on/14-11-14 by declaring income Rs.2,17,220; case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS & notice u/sl43(2) has been issued; assessment has been made u/sl43(3) on 29-12-16; Id AO has made addition of Rs.40,89,614 u/s56(2)(vii)(b) on the count of being difference in actual purchase price as compared to ‘SDV’ of the alleged land on the date of transfer i.e., 1-3-14; 1.2 the assessee has purchased land on 1-3-14 situated at Mangala, Bilaspur of 11,752 sq.feet for a consideration of Rs.35,25,675; the ‘SDV’ of the alleged land was Rs.81,92,000 as per the sale deed dt. 1-3-14 (PB-Pg.Nos.5 to 10); the Id AO has queried dt.9-9-16 (PB-Pg.No3.&4) for taxing the difference amount of Rs.46,66,325 u/s56(2)(vii)(b); 1.3 "The assessee has replied dt.26-12-16 (PB-Pg.No.1 & 2) before the Id AO that he has paid Rs.35,25,675 for the alleged land as per the ‘FMV’ of the alleged land at that time, and he has not made any extra payment as alleged by the Id AO, and requested to the Id AO to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation of the alleged land u/s50C(2) before applying sec 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii); however, the Id AO has rejected the plea of the assessee (as mentioned in Pg.8, Para 4.4 of the assessment order); 1.4 The assessee, before the Id CIT(A), has taken a ground of appeal for referring the matter to the DVO for valuation of the alleged land at the time of transfer (i.e., on 1-3-14), while the Id ITA No.159/RPR/2017 3 CIT(A) has also rejected such plea by saying that reference to the DVO is not required and simply applied sec56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) and sustained the alleged addition of Rs.40,89,614 (i.e., correct figure Rs.40,88,615) made by the Id AO, which is not justified; 1.5 Reliance is placed on Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal HC) dt.13-3-14 which says that a reference u/s50C has to be mandatorily made even if the assessee concerned fails to make such request, ...in light of proviso hereinabove to restore the ‘FMV’ issue back to the AO for afresh adjudication after making necessary reference to the DVO as per law; 1.6 The Hon’ble Raipur-Tribunal in the case of Narendra Kumar Lunia (2019) (Raipur-Trib) ITA No.202/RPR/2014 has concluded that “In view of the view so expressed by the division bench as also Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2014) (Cal HC), I deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to refer the valuation of property to the DVO u/s 50C(2). This is precisely what the learned Counsel for the assessee before us has prayed for.” 1.7. It is requested to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the FMV of the alleged land on the date of transfer on 1-3-14 before applying the deeming sec56(2)(vii) (b)(ii); reliance is placed on: Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) dt.5-10-18 Prem Chand Jain (2020) (Jai-Trib) dt.8-6-20 Narendra Kumar Lunia (2019) (Raipur-Trib) dt.22-9-16 Aavishkar Film (P) Ltd (2019) (Mum-Trib) dt.21-6-19 Kishore Kumar (2018) (Visak-Trib) dt. 11 -7-18 Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal HC) dt. 13-3-14 1.8. It is submitted that Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) dt.5-10- 18, held as under: “3. ...There is no dispute about the assessee having purchased 4 immovable properties involving less than stamp value(es) rate(s) to the tune of Rs.6,60,962. He raised various legal arguments before the CIT(A) which rejected. I find that sec56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable in case of an Indl or an HUF receiving any immovable property having stamp value exceeding Rs.50,000 without consideration or such a consideration to be less than stamp price of the property by an amount exceeding Rs.50,000. Ld counsel vehemently contended that both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on facts in invoking the impugned statutory provision. I find no merit in this argument since the legislature has made it clear in last proviso to see56(2)(vii) that this clause does not apply to any sum of money or any property ITA No.159/RPR/2017 4 received from any relative or donor as per clauses (a) to (g) therein. This is not the assessee’s case that his 4 transactions are in any way covered in the last proviso. I therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the lower authorities’ action invoking sec56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 4. Now comes FMV of the assets in issue. It is an admitted fact that neither of the lower authorities made any reference to the DVO. Sec56, first proviso make it clear that where the SD of immovable property is disputed on grounds mentioned in sec50C(2), the AO’s may refer such a valuation to the DVO. Hon’ble jurisdictional HC’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2014) (Cal HC) holds that a reference u/s50C has to be mandatorily made even if the assessee concerned fails to make such request, I therefore, apply the said ratio mutatis mutandis in light of proviso hereinabove to restore the FMV issue back to the AO for afresh adjudication after making necessary reference to the DVO as per law.” [as extracted from Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) ITA No.869/Kol/2018, AY14-15] 1.9. It is submitted that Prem Chand Jain (2020) (Jai-Trib) dt.8-6- 20, held as under: “2. The ld AR submitted that the appellant is a wholesale grain & seed merchant. During the year, he had purchased 2 piece of agri- land admeasuring l/6th of 40.25 bighas i.e., 6.71 bighas and also l/6th of 25 bighas i.e., 4.17 bigha respectively from Smt. Rajbala w/o Sh Satveer Singh and Sh. Satveer Singh s/o the file of the AO with the direction to refer the valuation of property to the DVO u/s 50C(2). This is precisely what the learned Counsel for the assessee before us has prayed for.” It is requested to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the FMV of the alleged land on the date of transfer on 1-3-14 before applying the deeming sec56(2)(vii) (b)(ii); reliance is placed on: Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) dt.5-10-18 Prem Chand Jain (2020) (Jai-Trib) dt.8-6-20 Narendra Kumar Lunia (2019) (Raipur-Trib) dt.22-9-16 Aavishkar Film (P) Ltd (2019) (Mum-Trib) dt.21-6-19 Kishore Kumar (2018) (Visak-Trib) dt.l 1-7-18 Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal HC) dt.13-3-14 ITA No.159/RPR/2017 5 1.8. It is submitted that Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) dt.5-10- 18, held as under: “3. ...There is no dispute about the assessee having purchased 4 immovable properties involving less than stamp value(es) rate(s) to the tune of Rs.6,60,962. He raised various legal arguments before the CIT(A) which rejected. I find that sec56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable in case of an Indl or an HUF receiving any immovable property having stamp value exceeding Rs.50,000 without consideration or such a consideration to be less than stamp price of the property by an amount exceeding Rs.50,000. Ld counsel vehemently contended that both the lower authorities have erred in law as well as on facts in invoking the impugned statutory provision. I find no merit in this argument since the legislature has made it clear in last proviso to sec56(2)(vii) that this clause does not apply to any sum of money or any property received from any relative or donor as per clauses (a) to (g) therein. This is not the assessee’s case that his 4 transactions are in any way covered in the last proviso. I therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the lower authorities’ action invoking sec56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 4. Now comes FMV of the assets in issue. It is an admitted fact that neither of the lower authorities made any reference to the DVO. Sec56, first proviso make it clear that where the SD of immovable property is disputed on grounds mentioned in sec50C(2), the AO’s may refer such a valuation to the DVO. Hon’ble jurisdictional HC’s decision in Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2014) (Cal HC) holds that a reference u/s50C has to be mandatorily made even if the assessee concerned fails to make such request, I therefore, apply the said ratio mutatis mutandis in light of proviso hereinabove to restore the FMV issue back to the AO for afresh adjudication after making necessary reference to the DVO as per law.” [as extracted from Gautam Bhakat (2018) (Kol-Trib) ITA No.869/Kol/2018, AY14-15] 1.9. It is submitted that Prem Chand Jain (2020) (Jai-Trib) dt.8-6- 20, held as under: “2. The ld AR submitted that the appellant is a wholesale grain & seed merchant. During the year, he had purchased 2 piece of agri- land admeasuring l/6th of 40.25 bighas i.e., 6.71 bighas and also l/6th of 25 bighas i.e., 4.17 bigha respectively from Smt. Rajbala w/o Sh Satveer Singh and Sh. Satveer Singh s/o Sh.Surja Ram, for ITA No.159/RPR/2017 6 a consideration of Rs.3,50,000 and Rs.2,00,000 which were valued by the Sub-Registrar at Rs.5,26,660 and Rs.3,26,976 respectively. The AO worked out the deemed sales consideration as per the aforesaid DLC value and added the difference of Rs.3,03,596 u/s56(2)(vii)(b) in the hands of the appellant, under the “IFOS”. 14. Without prejudice, it was further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has objected to the DLC value adopted by the AO and therefore, before applying the DLC value, the matter should have been referred to the DVO for determination of FMV and given that the matter was not referred to the DVO, necessary relief may be provided to the assessee. 16. We have heard. The relevant sec56(2)(vii)(b) which are u/c read as under: “(vii) where an Indl or a HUF receives, in any PY, from any person or persons on or after the 1-10-09 but before the 1-4-17,-*** 17. The above provisions thus provide that where an individual receives in any PY, from any person or persons on or after the 1- 10-09 but before the 1-4-17, any immoveable property for a consideration which is less than the SD value of the property by an amount exceeding Rs.50,000, the SD value of such property as exceeds such consideration shall be income chargeable to tax under the head “IFOS”. 18. In the instant case, the assessee has purchased 2 plots of land during the year u/c. The sale consideration as per the respective sale deeds amounts to Rs. 5,50,000 and the SD value of such properties as determined by the SD authority amounts to Rs.8,53,636 and therefore, there is difference to the tune of Rs. 3,03,636 between the sale consideration as per the sale deeds and the stamp valuation determined by the SVA. To this extent, the facts are not disputed and have been accepted by both the parties. 21. ...In this regard, the contention of the Id AR is that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has objected to the DLC value adopted by the AO and therefore, before applying the DLC value, the matter should have been referred to the DVO for determination of FMV. 22. ...The AO considered the submissions of the assessee but held that sec56(2)(vii) are applicable from the AY14-15 and the case of the assessee is squarely covered by sec56(2)(vii) as amended by the FA, 2013. However, we find that the AO has not appreciated the objection of the assessee regarding adoption of DLC value as against the sale consideration. ITA No.159/RPR/2017 7 Therefore, where the assessee has objected to the SD valuation, as per sec 50C(2) which are equally relevant for the purpose of sec56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), the matter should have been referred by the AO to the DVO for determination of FMV. Therefore, in the instant case, where it is so determined by the AO that the agriland so acquired falls in the definition of capital asset, he has to refer the matter to DVO to further determine the FMV of the 2 plots of agri-land and thereafter, decide the matter afresh. 23. The matter is accordingly set-aside to the file of the AO who shall decide the same as per the aforesaid directions after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. [as extracted from Prem Chand Jain (2020) 117 taxmann.com 370 (Jai-Trib) ITA No.98 (Jai) 2019/ AY14-15] 1.10. It is submitted that Narendra Kumar Lunia (2019) (Raipur- Trib) dt.22-9-16, held as under: “2. ...the AO noted that the SDV of the property, on sale of which LTCG were offered to tax, was much more than the stated consideration on sale of land. It was in this backdrop that the AO adopted the ‘FVC’ at SDV u/s50C as against value on which the property was actually sold. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) but without any success. Assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before me. 3. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. I find that even though the assessee may not have made a specific request for reference to the DVO, it was bounden duty of the AO to act fairly and should have given the assessee opportunity of referring the matter to the DVO for verification, u/s50C(2). As I say so, I may only refer to the following observation made by a DB of this Tribunal in Raj Kumari Agarwal 150 ITD 597: “6. We find that here is a case in which the assessee has specifically objected to the adoption of SDV rate. The mere fact that the appellant has not challenged the SDV cannot be put against the assessee. The authority for the this proposition is contained in, Hon’ble jurisdictional HC’s judgment, in Chandra Narain Chaudhuri (2013) (All HC), wherein Their Lordships have observed that: “The que as to whether the assessee filed any objections before the SVA to dispute the valuation, or filed appeal or revision or made reference before any authority, court or the HC u/s50C(2)(b) is not of any relevance in this case, as the AO himself observed that the ITA No.159/RPR/2017 8 assessee did not dispute the stamp valuation before the SVA. There may be several reasons for the purchaser not to file such objection. A purchaser may not go into litigation, and pay SD, as fixed by the SVA, which may be over and above the FMV of the property, as on the date of transfer, though the amount so determined has not been actually received by owner of the property”. The position as to whether reference should be made to the DVO, even when there is no specific plea to that effect by the assessee, is now well set out in Hon’ble Cal HC’s judgment in Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2014) (Cal HC) dt. 13-3-14, wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: “....we are of the opinion that the valuation by the DVO, contemplated u/s50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of SD. The legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a fair treatment to the citizen/ taxpayer. There is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof should be refused. Even in a case where no such prayer is made by the ld advocate representing the assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the AO, discharging a quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law.” 7. As there is no binding judicial precedent contrary to what has been held by Hon’ble Cal HC, as above, the esteemed views of Their Lordships, even though from a non jurisdictional HC, bind us as well. 8. In the light of the above legal position, the plea of the assessee, as set out in the ground of appeal, is indeed well taken. The prevailing legal position is now like this. Once the assessee claims that the actual market value of the land or building is less than stamp duty valuation adopted by the authorities, it is incumbent upon the AO to refer the valuation of said land or building to the departmental valuation officer. In the present case, the AO has not done so. In view of this factual position, and in the light of the discussions above, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the AO for adjudication de novo after making a reference to the DVO, and completing the assessment on the basis of the valuation so received from the DVO. While so deciding the matter afresh, the AO will decide the matter in accordance with the law, by way of a speaking order and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We direct so.” ITA No.159/RPR/2017 9 4. In view of the view so expressed by the division bench as also Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2014) (Cal HC), I deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to refer the valuation of property to the DVO u/s 50C(2). This is precisely what the learned Counsel for the assessee before us has prayed for.” [as extracted from Narendra Kumar Lunia (2019) 33 NYPTTJ 945 (Raipur-Trib) ITA No.202/RPR/2014, AY10-11] 1.11. It is submitted that Aavishkar Film (P) Ltd (2019) (Mum-Trib) dt.21-6-19, held as under: “7. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the primary fact that as against declared sale consideration of Rs.1.75 crore shown by the assessee the AO has adopted the value determined by the SVA at Rs.2,51,45,500, as deemed sale consideration u/s50C(l).... In the facts of the present appeal, undisputedly, in the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has objected to adoption of SD value as the deemed sale consideration for whatever may be the reason. That being the case, it was the duty of the AO to make a reference to the DVO for determining the value of the property sold. The contention of the Deptt that the reference to DVO was not made because the assessee raised the objection before the AO purposefully at the fag end to see to it that the proceeding gets barred by limitation, in our view, is unacceptable. Further, at the first appellate stage also Id CIT(A) could have directed the AO to get the valuation of the property done by the DVO and thereafter proceeded in accordance with law. In S Muthuraja (2013) (Mad HC), the Hon'ble Mad HC has held that where the assessee objects to the adoption of SD valuation as deemed sale consideration during the assessment proceedings, the AO is duty bound to make a reference to the DVO to determine the value of the property as per sec50C(2). The other decisions cited by the Id AR also express similar view. In fact, Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2014) (Cal HC), have gone a step further to observe that valuation by the DVO is contemplated u/s50C to avoid miscarriage of justice. It was held that when the legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a fair treatment to the tax payer, there is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof should be refused. The Hon'ble Court has observed that even in a case where no request is made by the assessee to make a reference to the DVO, the AO while discharging a quasi judicial function is duty bound to act fairly by giving the assessee an option to follow the course provided by law to have the valuation made by the DVO. ITA No.159/RPR/2017 10 The assessee’s case stands in a much better footing as in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had objected to adoption of SD value as the deemed sale consideration. Thus, in such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the AO should have followed the mandate of sec50C(2) by making a reference to the DVO to determine the value of the property sold. The AO having not done so and the ld CIT(A) also failing to rectify the error committed by the AO, we have no hesitation in restoring the issue to the AO with a direction to make a reference to the DVO to determine the value of the property sold in terms of sec50C(2) and thereafter, proceed to compute capital gain in accordance with law.” [as extracted from Aavishkar Film (P) Ltd (2019) 108 taxmann.com 270 (Mum-Trib) ITANo.2256/Mum/2016, AY11-12] 1.12. It is submitted that Kishore Kumar (2018) (Visak-Trib) dt.l 1- 7-18, held as under: “9. ...As per sec50C for computing the capital gains in case of a capital asset being land or building or both, if it is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Govt, for the purpose of SD in respect of such transfer the value so adopted or assessed shall for the purpose of sec48 be deemed to be the 4FVC’ received or accruing as a result of transfer. In case of dispute, the assessee is free to approach the SVA. In case the assessee did not dispute in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any HC, and objects before the AO for adopting the SRO value for capital gains as per sec50C, the AO may refer the valuation of the capital asset to VO and the value determined by the valuation authority shall be taken as full value for the purpose of capital gains. In the instant case, the assessee has not disputed the valuation made by the SVA for the purpose of stamp duties but objected for adoption of the same for capital gains. The assessee explained that SRO value was not disputed because of payment of SD by the buyer. The assessee also did not request the AO for making reference to the DVO for valuing the property. However, the assessee brought on record regarding the non exclusion of tenants share and complexities involved in sale of the property and for getting the lesser rate. Therefore, in all fairness the AO should have referred to the Depttal Valuation cell for valuing the property as provided in sec50C(2). ITA No.159/RPR/2017 11 Since, the AO has ignored the objections of the assessee and failed to refer the valuation of property to the DVO, we are of the opinion that the case should be remitted back to the file of the AO to make reference to the DVO to determine the FMV of the property for the purpose of computation of capital gains. 10. On the similar facts the Chen-Trib in ITA No.2115/Mds/2016 for the AY05-06 dt.28-10-16 remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. Similarly SD Vimalchand Jain (2016) (Chen- Trib), referred the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. Sudha Jain (2016) (Agra-Trib) taken the similar view and remitted the matter back to the file of AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO to re-adjudicate the issue afresh after the reference made to the VO on merits and as per law. Since, we have remitted back the case to the file of ld AO for fresh consideration, the assessee is at liberty to raise any other grounds before the ld AO to justify his stand on the issue. 11. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. [as extracted from Kishore Kumar (20148) 66 ITR (T) 158 (Visak-Trib) ITA No.149, 190 & 191/Vizag/2017] 5. On other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the assessment order, we found that the AO made disallowance u/s.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act rejecting the request of the assessee to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) because he has to complete the assessment to avoid delay in completing the assessment. The CIT(A) also affirmed the view taken by the AO as the assessee could not produce the evidence by way of sale deeds last executed before getting the plots transferred from the other ITA No.159/RPR/2017 12 member of joint venture. Ld. AR before us submitted that the assessee is having all the required documents, and, therefore, the issue may be restored back to the file of AO for limited purpose to decide the same after referring the matter to the DVO for valuation of the alleged land. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the AO is required to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the full market value of the alleged land, Accordingly, respectfully following the case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee in his written submission in the case of Prem Chand Jain, 117 taxmann.com 370 (Jai-Trib) and in the case of Gautam Bhakat, ITA No.869/Kol/2018, order dated 05.10.2018, we remit the issue to the file of AO for limited purpose to decide the issue afresh after getting valuation report from the DVO for determination of Full Market Value of the alleged land. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal of the case. Thus, we allow the sole ground of assessee for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/07/ 2022. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायप ु र/Raipur; ददनाांक Dated 26/07/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.(on tour) ITA No.159/RPR/2017 13 आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशाि ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायप ु र/ITAT, Raipur 1. अिीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, रायि ु र/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावित प्रयत //True Copy//