Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3094 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
19-05-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
15-05-2017
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
13-04-2011
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1788 /DEL/ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 SH. JASTINDER S INGH VEDI, 24/55, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI PAN : AAEPV4136E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY S/SH. R.S. SINGHVI AND SATYAJIT GOEL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 15.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.05.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2011 OF LEARNED CIT(A) - VIII, NEW DELHI, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE PLOT OF LAND NO. A - 2/204, PASCHIM VIHAR, DELHI MEASURING 167 SQ. MTRS. ALLOTTED BY DDA IN PUBLIC AUCTION ON 11.3.2002 WAS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF HOUSE NO. 37, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), N EW DELHI ESPECIALLY WHEN THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE SAID PROPERTY BELONGED TO OTHERS. 2. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ONE - THIRD SHARE OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF HOUSE NO. 37, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST) BELONGED TO TH E APPELLANT WHEREAS TWO - THIRD SHARE OF THE SAID FLAT BELONGED TO HIS WIFE AND THE LONG - TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN RESPECT OF THE TWO - THIRD SHARE FROM THE SALE OF THE SAID FLOOR HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 2 ITA NO . 1788/DEL/2011 3. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT PLOT NO. A - 2/204, PASCHIM VIHAR WAS THREE KILOMETERS FROM THE FIRST FLOOR OF HOUSE NO. 37, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI. 4. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER WAS NOT RELEVANT IN WORKING OUT THE VALUE OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF HOUSE NO. 37, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI. 5. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT UNLESS THE SAID PLOT WAS SIMILAR TO THE SAID FIRST F LOOR ON ACCOUNT OF SITUATION, LOCATION, SHAPE AND SIZE, EMPLACEMENT AND UTILITIES, THE VALUATION REPORT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. 6. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT ACCORDING TO THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASES OF (I) MANI SI NGH AVTAR SINGH VS IAC (1985) 151 ITR 233 (P&H), (II) SUBHAS MALHARIRAO KACHURE & OTHERS VS IAC (1986) 159 ITR 726 (KARNATAKA), (III) CIT VS LEATHERITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED (1984) 147 ITR 655 (P&H), (IV) CIT VS DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. (1991) 192 ITR 310 (DELHI) AND (V) JOSEPH VALLOORAN VS CIT (1977) 108 ITR 544 (ORISSA), WHERE THE VALUATION REPORTS WERE NOT BASED ON THE COMPARABLE PROPERTIES, THE SAME HAD BEEN QUASHED. 7 (I) THE CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE SALE OF THE GROUND FLOOR ALONG WITH TH E FIRST MEZZANINE ROOM OF HOUSE NO. 64/4, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI FOR RS. 10 LAKHS BY SMT. SURINDER KAUR TO SHRI SURJIT SINGH VIDE SALE DEED DATED 14.1.2006 WHICH WAS COMPARABLE TO THE SAID FIRST FLOOR. (II) THE CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT T HE VALUE OF THE LAND OF THE SAID FIRST FLOOR COULD BE ESTIMATED AT RS. 20,000 PER SQ. M. ON 15.6.2005 WITHOUT ANY VALID BASIS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCLE RATES WHICH HAD BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 1.7.2007. (III) THE CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE CONST RUCTION COST OF THE FIRST FLOOR AT RS. 19,89,660 WITHOUT ANY VALID BASIS. (IV) THE CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF THE FIRST FLOOR AT RS. 50,86,326 AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE FLAT OF RS. 22 LAKHS WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT A ND HIS WIFE FOR RS. 19 LAKHS ON 1 6.11.1999. 3 ITA NO . 1788/DEL/2011 THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND DESERVE TO BE MODIFIED. THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF 1/3 RD SHARE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ALONGWITH HIS WIFE, WHO WAS HAVING 2/3 RD SHARE . T HE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED AT FIRST FLOOR, 37, WEST AVENUE, PUNJABI BAGH NEW DELHI . THE GROUND FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR OF THE SAID BUILDING WAS OWNED BY UNRELATED PERSONS. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY ON 15.06.2005 AND SHOWN SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.22 LAKHS. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.1,40,569/ - PERTAINING TO SALE OF HIS SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED INQUIRIES AND FOUND THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME WAS VERY LOW AS COMPARED TO PREVAILING MARKET RATE IN THE LOCALITY ON THE DATE OF THE SALE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 55A OF THE ACT FOR FINDING OUT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE VALUATION OFFICER IN HIS REPORT SUBMITTED ON 30/12/ 2008 DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY O F RS.68,06,061/ - INCLUDING COST OF THE LAND . AFTER INVITING OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID VALUATION REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED 1/3 RD SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.22,68,687/ - AND MADE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.15,35,354/ - . ON FURT HER APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CIRCLE RATES FOR THE AFORESAID AREA HAD BEEN FIXED AT RS.27,300/ - PER SQ. MTR. W.E.F. 18.07.2007 AS AGAINST THE RATE OF RS.31,107/ - PER SQ. MTR. ADOPTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PERIOD OF SALE 4 ITA NO . 1788/DEL/2011 INVOLVED, HE ADOPTED THE PREVAILING MARKET VALUE AT RS.20,000/ - PER SQ. MTR. AND DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.50,8 6,329/ - AND 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.16,95,442/ - AS AGAINST RS.22,68,687/ - ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE ACT, COMPUTATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO SAID COMPUTATION, FOR CAPITAL GAIN DETERMINATION, COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET IS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SUBSTITUTE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY . I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, H E RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, CHANDIGARH VS. QUARK MEDIA HOUSE INDIA (P.) LTD ., REPORTED IN [2017] 77 TAXMANN.COM 301 (PUJNAB & HARYANA) . THE LD. CO UNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS THE CIRCLE RATES FOR THE AFORESAID YEAR WAS FIXED W.E.F. 18.07.2007 ONLY AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION THERE WAS NO CIRCLE RATE PRESCRIBED FOR PUNJABI BAGH AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WERE NO T APPLICABLE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED SR. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS REFERRED FOR VALUATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITUTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN PLACE OF FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION , A S PROVIDED IN SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IN CASE OF CAPITAL GAIN ASSETS BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. 5 ITA NO . 1788/DEL/2011 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE CASE IS WHETHER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT . IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT , IT IS SPECIFIED THAT INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET , T HE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER AND COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET INCLUDING COST OF ANY EMPLOYMENT OF THE ASSET. THUS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED/ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDER ED . HOWEVER, IN CASE OF SPECIFIC CAPI TAL ASSET LIKE LAND OR BUILDING, S ECTION 50C OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01.04.2003 . A CCORDING TO WHICH, IN CASE OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH , IF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT I.E. STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY THEN THE VALUATION ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. THE WORD ASSESSABLE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01.10.2009 AND PRIOR TO THAT VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEEM ED THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, IN SUB - SECTION 2 OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT , IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY , EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND THE VALUE ADOPTED, ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY, COURT OR HIGH COURT, THEN IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, 6 ITA NO . 1788/DEL/2011 THERE IS A PROVISION THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO VALUATION OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CERTAIN CASES. 50C. (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 VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED 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 : 69 [ PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXING THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE D ATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE 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 SUC H 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 THR OUGH A BANK ACCOUNT, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER. ] (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1), WHERE ( A ) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; ( B ) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR AS SESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE ( I ) OF SUB - SECTION (1) AND SUB - SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 2 4, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH - TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 16A OF THAT ACT. 6 . FURTHER, ALSO IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF QUARK MEDIA HOUSE INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT, REFERENCE MADE TO DVO UNDER 7 ITA NO . 1788/DEL/2011 SECTION 55A WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PROCEDURES LAID IN SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REFERRED THE SECTION 50C OF THE ACT BUT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , BEING NO CIRCLE RATE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNJABI BAGH AREA. 7 . THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELIED ON THE LETTER DATED 18.07.2007 OF THE GOVT. OF DELHI PRESCRIB ING THE CIRCLE RATE OF RS. 27,300/ - PER SQ. MTR. W.E.F. 18.07.20 07, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO CIRCLE RATE PRESCRIBED PRIOR TO THAT DATE. THE LD. SR. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REGISTERED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND VALUE ASSESSED OR ADOPTED IS HIGHER THAN THE VALUE SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE , IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE AND THE ISSUE NEED S TO BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THESE FACTS. THE LD. SR. DR ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE VALUE OF R S. 22 LAKHS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 16.11.1999 THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM VENDORS SH. JASBIR SINGH, S/O SH. NAND SINGH AND, THEREFORE, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER ASSESSED BECAUSE THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IN 1999 MUST HAVE INCREASED IN A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS . 8 . IN OUR OPINION, THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT MAY BE REPLACED BY THE VALUE ASSESSED OR ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITIES OR FA IR MARKET VALUE ONLY IF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT APPLIES IN THIS CASE A N D WHICH DEPENDS ON THE FACT WHETHER THE SALE TRANSACTION WAS REGISTERED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS 8 ITA NO . 1788/DEL/2011 BEEN SOLD THROUGH REGISTERED S ALE DEED AND THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS HIGHER THAN THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE. IF THE SALE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION IS NOT REGISTERED WITH STAMP VALUE AUTHORITIES, THEN FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF QUARK ME DIA HOUSE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA.). S INCE THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY VERIFIED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE , I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL IT APPRO PRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 9 T H MAY , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 9 T H MAY , 201 7 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI
