Late Smt. Jaydevi Mallikarjun Warad, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 162/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1133 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Gift; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.162/PN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 LATE SMT. JAYDEVI MALLIKARJUN WARAD, THROUGH L/H SHRI MALLIKARJUN WARAD, H.NO.B-15, KUMBRE GARDEN, OPP: EKALAVYA COLLEGE, KOTHRUD, PUNE 411 038 PAN NO.AATPW8837C . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CIRCLE-2, SOLAPUR . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK/ SHI CHANDRASHEKHAR L.S. / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI . B.C. MALAKAR / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 20-11-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE TAKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE T O EACH OTHER: ON FACTS AND IN LAW, / DATE OF HEARING :06.07.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:16.09.2015 2 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 1. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.2,86,87,000/- A DOPTED BY AO INSTEAD OF ACTUAL AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1, 02,34,700/-. 2. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERR ED IN ACCEPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY VALUATION OFFICER AT RS.2,86,87,000/-. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 24-07-2008 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.12,01,920/- CONSISTING OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FROM THE RETURN, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH SHRI RAOSAHE B BABASAHEB MANGIRE SOLD A PROPERTY SITUATED AT CTS NO.1157 AND 115 8, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE ADMEASURING 878.77 SQ.MTR AND 3572.08 SQ.MTRS TO M/S. U.K. ENTERPRISES FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,50,00,000/- VIDE P URCHASE DEED DATED 21-04-2007. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE SOLD ANOTHER PROPERTY SITUATED AT CTS NO.990, SADASHIV P ETH, PUNE ADMEASURING 150.50 SQ.MTRS TO THE SAME PARTY FOR A CONS IDERATION OF RS.17,00,000/-. THE VALUE OF THESE PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPO SE OF STAMP DUTY WAS ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES A T RS,2,62,00,000/- AND RS.31,60,000/- RESPECTIVELY AS PER THE RESPECTIVE SALE DEEDS TOTALING RS.2,93,60,000/-. THE AO NOT ED THAT THE PROPERTY AT CTS NO.1157 & 1158, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE WAS A JOINT PROPERTY HELD BY FOUR PERSONS, VIZ., SHRI RAOSAHEB BABASAH EB MANGIRE, SOU. JAIDEVI MALLIKARJUN WARAD (ASSESSEE), SHRI YOGESH SUDHIR SOPAL AND SHRI MANOJ RATNAKAR ANDALKAR. ALL THE FO UR PERSONS WERE FOUND TO HAVE EQUAL UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PROPERT Y. OF THE FOUR JOINT OWNERS, SHRI YOGESH SUDHIR SOPAL AND SHRI MANOJ RAT NAKAR ANDALKAR DID NOT SELL THEIR SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. THE AO NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO SMT. ANAND IBAI 3 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 MAHADEV VEERKAR (SHETE) AND ON HER DEATH SMT. TRIVENIBA I ANANT VEERKAR (SHETE) WHO WAS DAUGHTER IN LAW OF SMT. ANANDIBAI V EERKAR BECAME OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. SMT.TRIVENIBAI ANAN D VEERKAR WAS AUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND BEQUEATHED THE PROPERTY BY REGISTERED WILL VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1612/84 DATED 17-07-1984, BARSHI AMON GST THE ABOVE MENTIONED FOUR PERSONS IN EQUAL SHARE, I.E. 1/4 TH SHARE EACH. THE SHARES WERE STATED TO BE UNDIVIDED AS THE DEMARCA TION OF INDIVIDUAL SHARE OF EACH OWNER BY METES AND BOUNDS WAS N OT PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE AO THAT DURING THE YEAR, AS AGREED UPON BETWEEN U.K. ENTERPRISES ON ONE HAND AND RAOSAHEB MANGIRE AND SOU. JAIDEVI WARAD ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,50,00,000/-., I.E. RS.75,00,000/- EACH PLUS ONE FLAT EACH AT SAID BUILDERS HOU SING SCHEME AT B BUILDING, KAKADE CITY, HIGANE, KARVE NAGAR, P UNE VALUED AT RS.10,34,700/- INCLUDING STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION EXP ENSES. THUS, THE AGREED SALE PRICE FOR EACH 1/4 TH SHARE WAS STATED TO BE RS.85,34,700/- (RS.75,00,000/- + RS.10,34,700/-) BEFORE THE AO. THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY KIND OF OBJECTION AND OR PREFERRED APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT OF STAMP DUTY VALUE DETERMINED AT RS.15,24,000/- BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY. 4. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT VALUE OF LAND AS O N THE DATE OF SALE AND TO ARRIVE AT CORRECT COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 0 1-04-1981, A REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE DISTRIC T VALUATION OFFICER, SOLAPUR . IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S.50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 R.W.S. 16A OF THE W.T. ACT, 1957, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTIES SITUATED AT CTS NOS. 990, 1157 & 1158, SADASHIV PETH, PUN E WAS DETERMINED BY THE DVO AT RS.2,86,87,000/- AS ON 21-04-20 07, I.E. AS 4 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 ON THE DATE OF SALE. SIMILARLY, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT CTS NOS. 1157 & 1 158, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.5,98,500/- AND FOR THE PR OPERTY SITUATED AT CTS NO.990, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE AT RS.20,237/ -. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLE NGE THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE VERY SAME POINTS THAT WER E MORE OR LESS RAISED BEFORE THE VALUATION OFFICER, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WE RE ELABORATELY DEALT WITH BY THE DVO WHILE DETERMINING THE VA LUE AT RS.2,86,87,000/-. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF TH E TRANSACTIONS WAS THUS COMPUTED BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER : SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER VALUATION REPORT RS.2,86,8 7,000/- LESS : COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01-04-1981 I) IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT RS.32,97,735/- CTS NO.1157 & 1158 = RS.5,98,500 X 551/100 II) IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT RS.1,11,505/- CTS NO.990 RS.20,237 X 551/100 ----------------- -- RS.34,09,240/- -------------------- RS.2,52,77,760/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS : LESS : INVESTMENT U/S.54F RS.6,34,834/- INVESTMENT U/S.54EC RS.40,00,000/- RS.46,34,834/- --------------------- TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.2,06,42,926/- ------------------------- 5. THE NET TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SO WORKED OUT ABOVE WAS REDUCED TO RS.1,96,42,926/- SUBSEQUENTLY BY ORDER PAS SED U/S.154 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 18-01-2011, AT THE BEHEST OF THE AS SESSEE AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,34,700/- ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDER ATION RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF FLAT FROM UK BUILDERS WAS REDUCED AN D WAS 5 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 INCLUDED IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION ADOPTED AT RS.2,86,87,000/ - AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT. IN THE ORDER U/S.154, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO G IVEN CREDIT FOR THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/- IN CAPITAL B ONDS U/S.54EC AS AGAINST RS.40,00,000/- ALLOWED INITIALLY. 6. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS HELD BY FOUR DIFFERENT PERSONS HAVING 1/4 TH UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY POSSIBLE DEMARCATION OF THEIR SHARES. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER THE POSSESSION OF 52 TENANTS/SUB TENANTS PROTECTED BY JUDGMENTS OF COURTS INCLUDING TH AT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THEIR FAVOUR. THE ASSESSEE OR OTHE R OWNERS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES IN Q UESTION. APART FROM THIS, THE JOINT OWNERS ALSO HAD SOME DISPUTES/ RANCOR AMONGST THEMSELVES. IT WAS STATED THAT OUT OF THE 4 O WNERS ONLY 2 HAVE SOLD THEIR OWNERSHIP RIGHTS/UNDIVIDED/UNDEMARCATED S HARE IN THE PROPERTY AND THE BUYER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE O R DEVELOP THE PROPERTY UNLESS THE OTHER 2 OWNERS BEQUEATH THEIR RIGH TS AND UNLESS THE TENANTS HAND OVER THE POSSESSION. 7. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS AFFECTED ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH OWNERSHIP, THEREBY REQUIRING T HE CONSIDERABLE REBATE ON ACCOUNT OF THIS WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS IT WOULD NOT FETCH VALUE AS THAT OF FREEHO LD PROPERTY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE D ECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE REPORTED IN 173 ITR 366 (MAD.). ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY THE VALUATION DONE BY ITS VALUER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES VALUER, VIZ., THITE VALUERS PVT. LTD. WORKED OUT THE MARKET VALUE BASED ON THE SALE INSTANCE OF A FLAT IN SADAS HIV PETH BY REDUCING THE CONSTRUCTION COST FROM THE SALE RATE WHICH IS ALSO AN 6 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 APPROPRIATE METHOD OF VALUATION BUT THE DVO HAS NOT CON SIDERED THE SAME SIMPLY STATING THAT IT IS NOT A VALID METHOD. ACCOR DING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IN VALUATION IS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN THE MARKET AND NOT THE VALUE CALCULATED IN AN AB STRACT MANNER APPLYING A MULTIPLIER WITH REFERENCE TO SOME UNKNOWN SALE. IT WAS STRESSED THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS LINKED WITH THE PRIC E THE PROPERTY WOULD ORDINARILY FETCH IN THE OPEN MARKET, I.E. THE PRICE A W ILLING PURCHASER WOULD PAY TO THE WILLING SELLER FOR A PROPERTY, HA VING DUE REGARD TO ITS EXISTING CONDITION, EXISTING ADVANTAGES AND IT S POTENTIAL POSSIBILITIES WHEN LAID OUT IN THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS MANNER . THE ASSESSEE ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT EVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF S EC. 50C(2) THE DVO HAS TO CONSIDER THIS POSITION. CITING THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WERE SEVERAL ADVERSE FACTORS LIKE JOINT A ND UNDIVIDED OWNERSHIP, OUT OF 4 OWNERS, ONLY 2 OWNERS WERE SELLING THE PROPERTY, FULLY TENANTED PROPERTY, NOT EVEN A SQUARE INCH IN THE P OSSESSION OF THE OWNERS, SITUATED IN THE CONGESTED AREA, IMMEDIATE POS SESSION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE BUYER ETC. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE MARKE T VALUE AS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT THE VALU E ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS B E ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BE QUASHED. 8. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. WHILE DOING SO, HE HELD THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.2,62,00,000/- AS PER SALE DEED IN R ESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT CTS NO.1157 AND 1158. SIMILARLY, THE STAM P DUTY VALUE FOR PROPERTY AT CTS NO.990 WAS RS.31,60,000/-. THUS THE DEEMED VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS PER SECTION 50C WORKS OUT TO 7 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 RS.2,93,60,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESSER VALU E FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN, THEREFORE, THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE OB JECTED TO THE ADOPTION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO U/S.50C(2). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE AO IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN BASED ON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF SALE AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO. 8.1 AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING NON GRANTING OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY BY THE DVO IS CONCERNED HE REJEC TED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRELIMINARY VALUATION REPORT WAS FORWARDED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O STATE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, WHICH WAS ALSO DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DVO AFTE R DISCUSSING IN DETAIL HAS GIVEN REASONS AS TO WHY THE SALE INSTANCE R ELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES REGISTERED VALUER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. TH EREFORE, THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT. 8.2 SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DVO HA S NOT CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED THE LD.CIT(A) DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY THE SALE INSTANCES GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE VALUATIO N DONE BY THE DVO. 8.3 SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE S TRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM AND THAT THE STRUCTURE IS VERY OLD, SEMI PERMANENT AND EVEN TEMPORARY WHEREAS THE TYPE O F STRUCTURE IN THE INSTANCE OF SALE TAKEN BY THE DVO MAY NOT BE OF THA T TYPE THE LD.CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE DVO IN THE VALUATION REPORT HAS NOT TAKEN THE COST OF THE OLD DEPRECIATED STRUCTURE IN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE REASON THAT NORMALLY THE DEVELOPER OR PRUDENT BUYER W OULD DEMOLISH 8 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 THE OLD STRUCTURE AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROP ERTY WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE VALUE OF POTENTIAL OF THE PROPERTY. 8.4 SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PR OPERTY IS LOCATED AT SADASHIVPETH WHEREAS THE COMPARABLE SALE INST ANCES CITED BY THE DVO ARE AT NARAYANPETH AND THEREFORE IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IS CONCERNED, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT TIME LAG BETWEEN THE CO MPARABLE SALE INSTANCE RELIED UPON BY THE DVO HAS NOT BEEN QUEST IONED. THE DVO HAS CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE LOCATION OF THE FLAT CITED FOR COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE IS FAR INFERIOR TO THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IS MORE CENTRALLY LOCATED THAN THE SALE INSTANCE CITED. 8.5 SO FAR AS THE TIME GAP IS CONCERNED HE NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEES, REGISTERED VALUER HIMSELF HAS RELIED ON THE SALE INSTANCE OF FEBRUARY 2001 WHICH INFACT PREDATES THE SALE INSTANCES OF THE YEAR 2003 AND 2004 TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE DVO. 8.6 SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SA LE INSTANCES TAKEN BY THE DVO ARE VERY SMALL PORTIONS OF LAND ADMEASU RING BETWEEN 100 TO 500 SQ,MTRS. WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE LAND INVOLVED IS MORE THAN 4450 SQ. MTS IS CONCERNED THE SAME WAS REJECT ED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES SHARE OUT OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA OF 4450 SQ, MRS IS ONLY 1112 SQ.MRTRS. FURTHER , DVO HAS STATED THAT SMALLER PLOTS WOULD FETCH COMPARABLY LESS PRIC E AS COMPARED TO THE LARGER PLOT/PLACE AS THAT GIVES THE DEV ELOPER MORE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP THE LAND. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLA NATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISTINGUISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS C ITED BEFORE HIM THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. 9 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 9. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT SURVEY NOS. 1157 & 1158 SITUATED AT SADASHIVPETH WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER BROTHERS AND SISTERS. THE ASSESSEE W AS HAVING 1/4 TH SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSES SMENT YEAR THE ASESSEE AND HER BROTHER RAOSAHEB BALASAHEB MANGIRE SOLD THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES IN THE SAID PROPERTY TO M/S. U.K. ENTERPRISES. SO FAR AS THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.990 IS CONCERNED T HIS WAS ENTIRELY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS PROPERTY WAS ALSO SOLD TO M/S. UK ENTERPRISES. HE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THESE PROPERTIES A RE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. THERE ARE ABOUT 52 TENANTS ON BOTH THES E PROPERTIES AND NOT A SINGLE SQUARE FOOT OF LAND WAS IN THE POSSESSION O F THE ASSESSEE. THE TENANCY WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE COURT. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BE NCH TO THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWING SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AN D THE VALUE ADOPTED THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: SURVEY NO. AREA IN SQ.FT. CONSIDER - ATION (RS.) STAMP DUTY VALUE (RS.) VALUE DETERMINED BY THE APPROVED VALUER (RS.) VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO (RS.) 1157/1158 ASSESSEES SHARE - 11977 85,34,700/ - 2,62,00,000/ - 1,19,77,000/ - 2,52,69,700/ - 990 1,620 17,00,000/ - 31,60,000/ - 14,98,500/ - 34,17,300/ - 1,02,34,700/ - 2,93,60,000/ - 1,34,75,500/ - 2,86,87,000/ - 11.1 REFERRING TO THE ABOVE TABLE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE STAMP VALUATION OF THE ABOVE PROPERTIES WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN T HE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE 10 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 DVO, WHO HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO HAS CONSIDERED THE AVERAGE RATE PER SQ.FT AT RS.22710/- BY CONSIDERING 4 COMPARABLE INSTANCES WHICH ARE FOR THE PERIOD 2003-04. H OWEVER, HE DID NOT GIVE BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS. 22,710 PER SQ.FT. 12. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HE SUBMITTED THA T THE LD.CIT(A) IN HER ORDER HAS GIVEN THE BASIS OF WORKING WHICH CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER : 437/A/2 139 540 273 YEAR OF SALE MAY 2003 JUNE 2003 FEB2004 JULY 2004 RATE AS PER SALE DEED 14758 19934 18100 15126 TIME GAP IN YEARS 3 YRS 11 MTHS 3 YRS 10 MTHS 3 YRS 2 MTHS 2 YRS 9 MTHS INCREASE FOR TIME GAP OF ABOUT 3 YEARS AND FEW MONTHS 60% 60% 50% 43% INCREASE IN AMOUNT FOR TIME GAP 8854.8 11960 9050 6504.2 TOTAL 23613 31894 27150 21630 ADD : FOR LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE 20% 15% 15% 15% INCREASE IN AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE 4722.6 4784.2 4072.5 3244.5 TOTAL VALUE 28335 36679 31223 24875 AVERAGE RATE 30278 DEDUCTION FOR SIZE, TENANTS, UNDIVIDED SHARE ETC. AT 25% 7569.4 RATE ADOPTED FOR VALUATION 22708 OR SAY 22710 12.1 HE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE 4 PROPERTIES C ONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE BY THE DVO THE CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT ALL THE SE PROPERTIES WERE ALSO HAVING TENANTS, THEREFORE, THE DVO HAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THEM AS COMPARABLE INSTANCES FOR ARRIVING AT THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE. HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN RE SPECT OF THE 3 PROPERTIES. 11 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 13. SO FAR AS THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO. 437/A/2 IS CO NCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE AB OVE PROPERTY WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE TENANTS IS FACTUALLY INCORREC T. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT P AGES 105 TO 122 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ME NTION IN THE SAID AGREEMENT THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED BY TE NANTS. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) IS GROSSLY INCORRE CT. 14. SO FAR AS THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.139 IS CONCERN ED HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SALE DEED DOES NOT MEN TION THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS BUT THE DVO HAS STATED THAT HIS JUNIOR ENGINEER HAD SPECIFICALLY REQUISITIONED SALE INS TANCES OF TENANTED PROPERTY ONLY. ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSERTIO N OF THE DVO, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PROPERTY IS TENANTED PROPERTY. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED PLACED AT PAGES 123 TO 147 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE IN THE SALE DEED TH AT THE SAID PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS. THEREFORE, SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSERTION OF THE DVO THAT HE HAS CONSIDERED ONLY T ENANTED PROPERTIES THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TH E PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.139 WAS ALSO TENANTED PROPERTY. 15. SO FAR AS THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.540 IS CONCERN ED HE SUBMITTED THAT ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A) THERE IS SOME DISP UTE AND NAME OF SHRI AYODHYABAI LAHOTI HAS REMAINED ON THE PROPERTY CARD AND THE DISPUTE IS PENDING AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEM ENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE SAID AGREEMENT , COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 148 TO 183 OF THE PAPER BOOK , DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGE S 183 TO 191 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPU TE IN RESPECT OF 12 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 THE SAID PROPERTY AND AT PAGE 187 AT PARA 6 IT HAS BE EN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IS FREE FROM ANY ENCUMBRANCE. 16. AS REGARDS THE NAME OF LOHOTI REMAINING ON THE P ROPERTY CARD IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID FACT IS MENTIONED IN PAGE 3 AT PAGE 184 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT IS MENTIONED ONLY FOR COMPLETING THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE PROPERTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE CONCLU SION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS GROSSLY INCORRECT. 17. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THR EE PROPERTIES DID NOT HAVE ANY TENANTS OUT OF THE ABOVE 4 PROPERTIES . ONLY THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.273 WAS HAVING 8 TENANTS AND TH E SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN THE YEAR 2004 AND THE SELLING RATE OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS 15126/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SELLING RATE OF PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.139 WAS 19,934/- AND THE SELLING RATE OF PROPERTY AT S URVEY NO.540 WAS RS.18,100. IT SHOWS THAT THE TENANTED PROPERTY FE TCHES LESSER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, AS AGAINST 8 TENANTS IN THE PR OPERTY AT SURVEY NO.273 THE PRICE PER SQ.FT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO BE MUCH LESS. 18. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE DVO HAS INCREASED THE VALUATION OF THE COMPARABLE INSTANCES O N ACCOUNT OF TIME GAP AND LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGES. SO FAR AS THE TIME GA P IS CONCERNED THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE DVO HAS GIVEN AN ARBITRARY INCREASE WHILE HE SHOULD HAVE ADO PTED COST INFLATION INDEX. SECONDLY, HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD A NY LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE AND THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SITU ATED IN THE HEART OF THE CITY. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF LOCATIONAL ADVAN TAGE GRANTED IS GROSSLY INCORRECT. FURTHER, THE DVO HAS GIVEN REDUCT ION @25% ON 13 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 ACCOUNT OF FACTORS LIKE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND UNDIVIDED SHAPE AND OCCUPATION BY THE TENANTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS AGAINS T REDUCTION OF 25% THE BENEFIT SHOULD BE GIVEN OF ABOUT 50%. HE ACCORD INGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE DVO SHOULD BE DELETED. 19. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE DVO IS LESS THAN THE VALUATION DONE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE RATE AP PROVED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) BEING REASONABLE THE SAME MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 20. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BOTHERED FOR THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY SINCE THE STAMP DUTY IS PAID BY THE PURCHASER. HE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE 4 INSTANCES GIVEN BY THE D VO, 3 PROPERTIES ARE NOT TENANTED. THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOU LD BE REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE AO AS WE LL AS CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE DVO ON 27-12- 2010, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 83 TO 86 OF THE PAPER BOOK, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO THE ASSE SSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE SALE INSTANCE TAKEN BY THE DVO. REFER RING TO THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CIT(A), COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE S 81 TO 104, HE SUBMITTED THAT OBJECTION WAS ALSO TAKEN BEFORE CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE THE DVO ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN OBJECTION OF THE S AME, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 61 TO 69. 14 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 21. REFERRING TO THE COST INFLATION INDEX TO THE RATES BAS ED ON THE SALE INSTANCES YEAR AND TO A.Y. 2008-09 HE SUBMITTED THA T THE AVERAGE RATE COMES TO 20,047. THEREFORE, IF 50% REDUCTION FOR TENA NTS ETC. IS GIVEN, THE RATE COMES TO 10,024/- WHICH IS LESS THAN THE SALE PRICE RATE BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING CHART : AVERAGE RAT E ON SALE INSTANCES RATE 14,758 19,934 18,100 15,126 16,980 INDEX IN THE YEAR OF SALE INSTANCES 463 463 463 480 INDEX IN A.Y. 2008 - 09 551 551 551 551 INDEXED RATE 17,563 23,723 21,540 17,363 20 ,047 RATE AFTER DEDUCTION FOR 50% TENANTED PROP 8,781 11,861 10,770 8,682 10,024 HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIO US DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASESSEE SOLD 2 PROPERTIES. THE FIRST PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT CTS NOS. 11 57 AND 1158 AT SADASHIVPETH, PUNE AND WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH 3 OTHER OWNERS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOLD ANOTHER PROPERTY SITUATED AT CTS NO.990. SADASHIVPETH, PUNE. THE SHARE IN THE FIRST PROPERTY SOLD WAS AT RS.85,34,700/- WHEREAS THE VALUE DE TERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS RS.2,62,00,000/-. THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED THE VALUATION REPORT OF AN APPROVED VALUER ACCO RDING TO WHOM 15 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 SUCH VALUATION WAS RS.1,19,77,000/- AND THE VALUE DETERMIN ED BY THE DVO WAS RS.2,52,69,700/-. SIMILARLY, FOR THE PROPERTY AT SUR VEY NO.990 THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.17 LA KHS WHEREAS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES HAVE ADOPTED TH E VALUE OF RS.31,60,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VALUATION REPORT OF AN APPROVED VALUER WHO HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS.14,88 ,500/- WHEREAS THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO WAS RS.34,17,30 0/-. WE FIND THE AO REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). IT MAY BE PERT INENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE DVO WHILE CALCULATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS CONSIDERED 4 SALE INSTANCES AND ARRIVE D AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES. 23. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT BOTH THESE PROPERTIES ARE TENANTED PROPERTIES AND THERE AR E ABOUT 52 TENANTS IN BOTH THE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF A SINGLE SQUARE FOOT OF LAND AND THE TENANCY HAS BEEN APPR OVED BY THE COURT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T HE PROPERTY WHICH IS TENANTED ONE WILL FETCH LESSER PRICE THAN THE PROP ERTY WHICH IS FREE FROM ANY ENCUMBRANCE. SINCE THE DVO HAS CONSIDERED 4 SALE INSTANCES OUT OF WHICH 3 ARE NOT TENANTED AND THE FOUR TH PROPERTY HAS ONLY 8 TENANTS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT 52 TENA NTS, THEREFORE, THOSE INSTANCES ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. FU RTHER, THE DVO HAS GIVEN REDUCTION OF 25% ON ACCOUNT OF FACTORS LIKE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, UNDIVIDED SHARE AND OCCUPATION BY THE TEN ANTS ETC. WHEREAS SUCH BENEFIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE. 16 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 24. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT TH E PROPERTIES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TENANTED PROPERTIES HAVING 52 TENANTS ON BOTH THE PROPERTIES AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN POSSES SION OF SINGLE SQUARE FOOT OF LAND. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE DVO/AO/CIT(A), WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO SUCH SALE INSTANCES ON THE GROUND THAT THE 3 SALE INSTANCES TAK EN BY THE DVO ARE NOT AT ALL TENANTED PROPERTIES WHEREAS THE PROPER TIES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TENANTED PROPERTIES. FROM THE SALE INSTAN CES TAKEN BY THE DVO WE FIND PROPERTY SITUATED AT 437/A/2 IS NOT TEN ANTED ONE. A COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS PLACED AT P AGES 105 TO 122 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AT PAGE 5 OF THE SALE DEED (109 OF TH E PAPER BOOK) IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND THE SAID PROPERTY IS IN VACANT AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE PART Y OF THE FIRST PART. THEREFORE, THE SALE INSTANCE TAKEN BY THE DVO FOR PROPERTY SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.437/A/2 CANNOT BE A COMPARABLE ONE. 25. SO FAR AS PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.139 IS CONCERNED IT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE DVO AS A COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE. HERE A LSO, FROM THE ENGLISH TRANSLATED COPY OF THE SALE DEED PLACED AT PAGES 142 TO 147 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT CLAUSE 1 (D) AND (E) THAT THE VENDORS ARE ABSOLUTE OWNERS OF THE SAID PROPE RTY AND THEIR NAMES ARE ENTERED IN THE PROPERTY CARD AND THE VEND ORS ARE ENJOYING THE SAID PROPERTY BY SUCCESSION WHICH IS FREE FROM ANY E NCUMBRANCE AND THEY HAVE ALSO HANDED OVER THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL AND VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY BY MEETS AND BOUNDS. T HUS PROPERTY 17 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 AT SURVEY NO.139 IS ALSO NOT A TENANTED PROPERTY AND T HEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE INSTANCE. 26. SO FAR AS PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.540 IS CONCERNED WE FIND THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE DVO AS A COMPARABLE SALE IN STANCE. WE FIND FROM THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SALE DEED (PAGES 183 TO 191) THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IS ALSO NOT A TENANTED ONE. SINC E IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTY IS CLEAR AND FREE FRO M ENCUMBRANCE SUCH AS MORTGAGE, DONATION, GIFT, LIEN, MAINTEN ANCE ETC. AND THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF ANY COURT LITIGATION, TH EREFORE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ABOVE 3 PROPERTIES CONSIDERED BY THE DVO AS COMPA RABLE SALE INSTANCES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE SALE INSTAN CES FOR THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE TENANTED PROPERTIES. 27. SO FAR AS THE FOURTH PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, I.E. PROPER TY SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.273 WE FIND FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME WAS SOLD IN THE YEAR 2004 AT A SELLING RATE OF 15,126 PER SQUARE FOOT. FROM THE SALE INSTANCES GIVEN B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE TENANTED PROPERTY FETCHES LESSER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE 4 SALE INSTANCES GIVEN BY THE DVO. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE SQ.FT RATE OF PROPERTY AT SURVEY N O.139 WAS RS. 19,934/- AND SELLING RATE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT SURV EY NO.540 WAS AT RS.18,100/- WHEREAS THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.2 73 WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD AT RS.15,126/- PER SQ.FT . THIS SHOWS THAT A TE NANTED PROPERTY FETCHES LESSER RATE THAN A PROPERTY FREE FROM ANY ENCUMBRANCE AND HAVING VACANT POSSESSION BY THE OWNER . THEREFORE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE THAT 18 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 WHEN A PROPERTY HAVING 8 TENANTS FETCHES LESSER PRICE T HAN A PROPERTY FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCE, THE PROPERTY HAVING 52 TENANTS W ILL DEFINITELY FETCH LESSER PRICE THAN THE PROPERTY HAVING 8 TENANTS. THEREFORE, THE 4 INSTANCES TAKEN BY THE DVO ARE NOT COMPARABLE INSTANCES. 28. WE FURTHER FIND THE DVO HAS INCREASED THE VALUATION O F THE PROPERTY OF COMPARABLE INSTANCES ON ACCOUNT OF TIME GAP AND LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE. SO FAR AS THE LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE IS CONCERNED WE FIND ALL THE PROPERTIES ARE SITUATED IN THE HEART OF THE CITY AND THEREFORE BENEFIT OF LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE CANNOT BE A FACTO R FOR INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSE E. SO FAR AS THE TIME GAP IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE DVO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE COST INFLATION INDEX PUBLISHED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. F URTHER THE DVO HAS GIVEN REDUCTION @25% ON ACCOUNT OF FACTORS LIKE S IZE OF THE PROPERTY, UNDIVIDED SHARE AND OCCUPATION BY THE TENANTS ETC. ON PRESUMPTION BASIS. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE AO OR MATERIA L IN HIS POSSESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY EXTRA AMOUNT OTHER THAN WHAT IS DECLARED AS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE PURCHAS ER HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE OR STATED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE HAS PAID MORE THAN WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. UNDER THESE C IRCUMSTANCES AND CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM THE VERY BEGINNING, I.E., BEFORE THE DVO/AO AND THE CIT(A) THAT THE VA LUATION MADE BY THE DVO IS NOT CORRECT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. A T THE SAME TIME WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER A PPOINTED BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.1 157 & 1158 AT RS.1,19,77,000/- THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ADOPT ION OF RS.85,34,700/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEP TED SINCE THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS CONSIDERED ALL ASPECTS AS ARGU ED BY THE LD. 19 ITA NO.162/PN/2014 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT WHILE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.1157 & 1158 BE HELD AT RS.1, 19,77,000/-, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.990 BE TAKEN AT RS.17,00,000/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO REC OMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDINGLY. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16-09-2015. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; # DATED : 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. LRH'K ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ( ) S / THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. ( S / THE CIT-III, PUNE 5. 6. + ., ., IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , + //TRUE C + //TRUE COPY// 2 . / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ., IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE