ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1) , CHENNAI V. TAS Ramamurthy , CHENNAI

ITA 1628/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5759 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S PANDIAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR ADVOOCATE ITA NOS
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1628/MDS/2017 & C.O. NO.123/MDS/2017 (IN ITA NO.1628/MDS/2017) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1) CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SHRI. TAS RAMAMURTHY, A-1, AK BLOCK NO.55, 10 TH MAIN ROAD, 16 TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040. [PAN AADPR 0477M] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) ./ I.T.A. NO. 1629/MDS/2017 & C.O. NO.124/MDS/2017 (IN ITA NO.1629/MDS/2017) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1) CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SMT. SUBHADRA RAMAMURTHY, A-1, AK BLOCK NO.55, 10 TH MAIN ROAD, 16 TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040. [PAN AADPR 3067P] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) DEPARTMENT BY : DR. S. PANDIAN, IRS, JCIT. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOOCATE ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 2 -: ! ' # $% /DATE OF HEARING : 07-12-2017 &' # $% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-12-2017 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTI ONS OF THE ASSESSEES DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 10. 04.2017 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI. 2. GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS AR E COMMON AND THESE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE C ASE 2.1THE CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C HAS NO APPLICATION ON THE IMPUGNED TRAN SFER, AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER IS 03.03.2008 I.E. BEFORE T HE INSERTION OF THE WORDS' OR ASSESSABLE' THOUGH W.E.F 01.10.2009 ON THE STATUE. 2.2. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSION S LTD. ( 319 ITR 306) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE AMENDMENTS ARE CURATIVE IN NATURE, THEY ARE EFFECTI VE RETROSPECTIVELY. 2.3. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BAG RI IMPEX PVT. LTD VS. ACIT 214 TAXMAN 305( CAL) TOOK A VIEW THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 W.E.F01.10.2009 WAS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY. ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 3 -: 2.4. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF MOHD IMRAN BA IG VS. ITO WHEREIN IT WAS SETTLED THAT THE SRO VALUE A S ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 3.FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED A T THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . 3. ASSESSEES WHO ARE HUSBAND AND WIFE HAD SOLD PROPERT Y MEASURING 11 GROUNDS AND 2064 SQ.FT OF LAND DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THROUGH A SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH ONE M/S. N.M. ASSOCIATES FOR AN APPARENT CONSIDERATION OF A18.16 CRORES. THE RATIO OF HOLDING OF THE TWO ASSESSEES IN THE PROPERTY WE RE AS UNDER:- (I) SHRI. T.A.S. RAMMURTHY : 6 GROUNDS PLUS 1368 SQ.FT . (II) SMT. SUBHADRA RAMMURTHY : 5 GROUNDS PLUS 696 SQ.FT ASSESSEES HAD FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAKEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.4.1981 AT THE RATE OF A5,0 0,000/- PER GROUND. ASSESSEES ALSO CLAIMED PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT EXPEN SES AS UNDER WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 T.A.S. RAMAMURTHY 24,26,510 4,20,167 SUBHADHRA RAMAMURTHY 18,89,012 3,27,095 ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 4 -: FOR ADOPTING VALUE OF A5,00,000/- PER GROUND, AS O N 01.04.1981 ASSESSEES HAD RELIED ON AN NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 18.12.2000 BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC TION 269UC OF THE ACT, WHERE A LIKELY SALE CONSIDERATION OF A2,75,00 ,000/- WAS ACCEPTED BY SUCH AUTHORITY FOR A SALE PROPOSED IN THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2000-2001, WHICH NEVER WENT THROUGH. THIS AMOUNT, WHEN SUBJEC TED TO REVERSE INDEXATION UPTO 1980-81, GAVE A VALUE OF A5,42,772/ - PER GROUND FOR THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981. 4. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT EITHER CO NSIDERATION OF A18.16 CRORES CLAIMED AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY NOR DID HE ACCEPT THE VALUE AS ON 01.0 4.1981 ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A5,00,000/- PER GROUND FOR WORKI NG OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS. HE ALSO RECOMPUTED THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSE S CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MARK ET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 HAD TO BE ADOPTED AS A35, 000/- PER GROUND, AND FOR THIS HE RELIED ON AN LETTER FROM THE SRO, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI. FOR FIXING THE SALE CONSIDERATION, LD. AS SESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SEC.50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT THE ACT) HAD TO BE APPLIED. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE MAR KET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, FIXED BY THE SRO CAME TO A11,000/- PER SQ . FT. THIS VALUE WAS DERIVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE DATA AVAILABLE IN ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 5 -: PUBLIC DOMAIN. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE, LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAINS ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE SHRI. TAS RAMAMURTHY WAS RE-COMPUTE D BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER:- AMOUNT IN A AMOUNT IN A SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SECTION 50C 12627 SQ.FT. X A11,000/- 13,88,97,000 LESS: - COST 01.04.1981 A35,000 PER GROUND COST OF 5.627 GROUNDS: ADOPTED AT A1,96,945/- I.E. 5.627 X 35000 LESS: INDEXED COST FOR THE COST OF LAND (196945 X582/100) 11,46,219 11,46,219 ASSESSEE S SHARE OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE 2603090/17500 X12627) = 1889012, WHICH WAS INCURRED DURING THE YEAR 2005-06. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (1878240 X 582/497) 21,99,469 21,99,469 LESS: LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 13,55,51,312 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. SUBHA DRA RAMAMURTHY WAS COMPUTED AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 6 -: PARTICULARS AMOUNT IN A AMOUNT IN A SALE CONSIDERATION AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A12,50,00,000/-. AS PER SRO VALUE AFTER INVOKING SECTION 50C IS A13,51,90,000/- I.E. 12290 SQ,FT X A11,000/- PER SQ.FT 13,51,90,000 13,51,90,000 LESS: - COST 01.04.1981 A35,000 PER GROUND. COST OF 5.29 GROUNDS (12290 SQ.FT. ADOPTED AT A1,85,150/- I.E. 5.29 X 35000 LESS: INDEXED COST FOR THE COST OF LAND (185150 X582/100) 10,77,573 10,77,573 ASSESSEE SHARE OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE 2603090/17500 X12627) = 1889012, WHICH WAS INCURRED DURING THE YEAR 2005-06. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (1889012 X 582/497) 22,12,082 22,12,082 LESS: LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 13,19,00,345 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEES MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN SO FAR A S ADOPTION OF VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS CONCERNED, ARGUMENT OF T HE ASSESSEES WAS THAT A PART OF THE SAME LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI. T.A.S. RAMAMURTHY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. AS PER THE ASSESSEE MARKET VALUE OF THE VERY SAME PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981, WAS FIXED BY THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER AT A2,36,300/- PER GROUND. IN SO FAR AS DEVELOPMENT CH ARGES WERE ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 7 -: CONCERNED, PLEA OF THE ASSESSEES WAS TO TAKE CORREC T INDEXED COST OF SUCH CHARGES. MAIN GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON INVOCATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. AS PER THE ASSESSEES BY VIRTUE OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R. SUGANTHA RAVINDRAN, 352 ITR 488, WHEN A TRANSFER WAS EFFECTED THROUGH AN UNREGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT, SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE APPLIED, PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ONLY ON 01.10.2009. 6. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES, DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER FMV PER GROUND OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04 .1981 AT A2,26,300/-. IN SO FAR AS ISSUE OF DEVELOPMENT CH ARGES WAS CONCERNED, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER EXCEPT FOR DIRECTING CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN THE FIGURES TAKE N. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, F OR FIXING THE FAIR VALUE AS ON DATE OF SALE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE R. SUGANTHA RAVINDRAN (SUPRA). ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 8 -: 7. NOW BEFORE US, GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ASSAILS THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) THAT SECTION 50C OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICATION FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WE RE AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 50C THROUGH FINANCE ACT 2016 AND SUCH AMEND MENTS WERE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. FOR CANVASSING THIS, RELIAN CE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD 319 ITR 306 AND THAT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF M/S. BAGRI IMPEX PVT. LTD VS. ACIT 214 TAXMAN 305. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THIS POSITION WAS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE EXPLANATORY NOTE ISSUED BY THE CBDT, ON THE AMEN DMENTS MADE TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 2016. 8. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTIN G THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SIMILAR ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-2011 WHEN A PART OF THE SAME PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY ONE OF THE AS SESSEES. ACCORDING TO HIM SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WAS INVOKE D IN THE SAID YEAR ALSO. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, AS SESSEE SHRI. T.A.S. RAMAMURTHY HAD FILED AN APPEAL FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. CONTENTION OF THE L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE LD. ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 9 -: ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, LD . ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE VERY SAME PROP ERTY AS A2,800/- PER SQ.FT AGAINST A11,000/- PER SQ.FT. CONSIDERED N OW. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, EVEN IF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WAS HELD TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, FAIR VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY AS ON DATE OF SALE HAD TO BE TAKEN AT THE RATE AT A2,800/- PER SQ.FT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. CONTENTION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT AMENDMENT TO SUB SECTION (1 ) TO SEC. 50C OF THE ACT BROUGHT IN THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 2016, W.E.F . 01.04.2017 HAD TO BE CONSTRUED RETROSPECTIVELY. FOR THIS RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD (SUPRA ), AMONG OTHERS . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD CONSIDERED ONLY THE AMENDMENT TO SU B SECTION (1) TO SEC. 50C OF THE ACT, BROUGHT IN THROUGH FINANCE (NO .2) ACT 2009, W.E.F. 01.10.2009. HE HELD SUCH AMENDMENT TO BE PR OSPECTIVE IN NATURE RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF R. SUGANTHA RAVINDRAN (SUPRA). LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS BROUGHT I N THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 2016. WHAT WE FIND IS THAT HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CONSIDERED SEC.50C OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD PR IOR TO THE ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 10 -: AMENDMENT TO SAID SECTION THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 2016 , WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPLICABILITY OF SAID SECTION TO SALES EFFECTED THROUGH AGREEMENTS. PRIOR TO THE 2016 AMENDMENT, SAID SUB SECTION READ AS UNDER:- (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VA LUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY AN Y AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORI TY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER. THROUGH THE AMENDMENT DONE THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 201 6 W.E.F. 01.04.2017, TWO PROVISOS WERE ADDED TO SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. WITH THE ADDITIONS OF THESE PROVISO THE SAID SUB SECTION READS AS UNDER:- (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS L ESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXING THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 11 -: NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION, OR A PART THEREOF, HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER. ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US IS THAT THE TWO PROVISOS ADDED THROUGH FINANCE ACT, 2016 WILL HAVE RETROSPECTIVE O PERATION AND JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF R. SUGANTHA RAVINDRAN (SUPRA) HAS NO MORE APPLICABILITY. BE THAT AS IT MAY, CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E IS THAT GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ONLY A2,800/- PER SQ.FT AND THIS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE R EMAND REPORT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, WHERE ALSO A SIMILAR AD DITION WAS MADE. NO DOUBT FOR THE SAME PROPERTY THERE CANNOT BE WIDE LY VARYING GUIDELINE VALUES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF TIME. CONSI DERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS I T RELATES TO ADOPTION OF GUIDELINE VALUE AS ON DATE OF SALE, FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ALSO ON THE QUESTION OF APPLICABI LITY OF SECTION 50C OF ITA NOS. 1628 & 1629/17, CO123 & 124/2017 :- 12 -: THE ACT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEES 11. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT IF THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDER ING THE CORRECT GUIDELINE VALUE AS ON DATE OF SALE FOR COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, CROSS OBJECTIONS COULD BE TREATED AS INFRUCT UOUS. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEES STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPENING COURT AT THE TIME O F HEARING ON 7 TH DECEMBER, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % &' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) ' / CHENNAI * / DATED:7TH DECEMBER, 2017. KV + # ,$- . / . $ / COPY TO: 1 . 0 / APPELLANT 3. ! 1$ ( ) / CIT(A) 5. .45 ,$6 / DR 2. ,70 / RESPONDENT 4. ! 1$ / CIT 6. 58 9' / GF