Anil Murlidhar Deshmukh, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Nashik

ITA 1821/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9677 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET M JOSHI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Fair market value
• Section: 37; 2; 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NO.1821/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI ANIL MURLIDHAR DESHMUKH, PLOT NO.80A, BEHIND ESSAR PETROL PUMP, MAHATMA NAGAR, NASHIK-422 007 PAN : ADWPD4520B .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), NASHIK . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANKET M. JOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2018 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12.2018 / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-1, NASHIK ON 01.05.2017 IN RELATION TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A GAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,96,400/- MADE BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF 2 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFT ER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. SUCCINCTLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE SOLD A PLOT ON 23.11.2012 SITUATED IN NASHIK MUNICIPAL LIMITS A T S. NO.726/1-B THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED FOR A SALE CONSIDERA TION OF RS.42,00,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE STAMP VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS RS.56,19,000/- , THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WERE ATTRACTED. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE STAMP VALUATION AND REQUESTED THE AO TO MAKE A REFE RENCE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) FOR ASCERTAINING F AIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE DVO DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.46,96,400/- AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES OBJ ECTIONS. THE AO COMPUTED CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING FULL VALUE OF CON SIDERATION AT RS.46,96,400/- ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.42,00,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE. THIS RESULTED INTO AN ADDITION OF RS.4,96,400/-, WHICH WAS CONFI RMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ADDIT ION. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE STAMP VALU E OF THE PLOT SOLD BY ASSESSEE WAS RS.56,19,000/- AS AGAINST DECLARED SAL E CONSIDERATION OF RS.42,00,000/- AND THE DVO DETERMINED FAIR MARKET V ALUE AT RS.46,96,400/-, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BASIS FOR TH E INSTANT ADDITION. THE LD. AR STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SMT. BHARTI JAYESH SANGNAI (2011) 128 ITD 0345 (MUM) IN HOLDING THAT THE REPORT OF THE 3 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 DVO IS BINDING ON THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS RE PORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE DECLARED SALE VALUE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATIO N. THIS WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. DR, WHO RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. 5. IN MY OPINION, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS NOT FULLY CORRECT. REPORT OF THE DVO IS BINDING ON THE AO IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHICH MANDATES THAT : ` SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCER TAINED UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED O R ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTIO N (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REFERRED TO T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. DR. INDRA SWAROOP BHATNAGAR (2012) 349 ITR 210 IN WHICH CASE ALSO THE SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN REITERATED BY HOLDING THAT : `IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT GENERALLY, WHEN THE A.O. HAS OBTAINED THE D.V.O. REPORT THEN THE SAME I S BINDING. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO IS BINDING ON THE AO, UNLESS THE ASSESSEE SHOWS SOME GLARING MISTAKES IN SUCH VALUAT ION. I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), IN PRINCI PLE, ON THIS SCORE. 6. NOW, I TURN TO THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REPORT OF THE DVO. FIRSTLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE DVO CONSIDERED THREE SALE INSTANCES WITH VARYING RATES OF RS.10900/-, RS.15614/- AND RS.15714/- PER SQUARE METRE RESPECTI VELY, BUT 4 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.18,808/- P.S.M. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTE D HIMSELF TO THE RATES AS PER THE SALE INSTANCES RATHER THAN INCREAS ING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEYOND SUCH RATES. THIS WAS O PPOSED BY THE LD. DR. 7. I DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. IT IS APPARENT FROM SALE INSTANCES NOTED BY THE DVO ON PA GE 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THESE SALES TOOK PLACE ON 18.07.2011, 31. 03.2011 AND 19.03.2011 RESPECTIVELY. AS AGAINST SUCH DATES, THE ASSESSEE SOLD ITS PROPERTY ON 23.11.2012. THE DVO HAS SIMPLY INCREASE D THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SALE INSTANCES CONSIDERING THE TIME LA G, LOCATION, SHAPE AND SIZE ETC. OF THE PROPERTY. SUCH AN OBJECTION WAS TA KEN BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DVO, WHO RIGHTLY DEALT WITH THE SAME VI DE PARA 8.2 OF HIS REPORT BY MENTIONING THAT HE ARRIVED AT THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION AS PER VALUATION GUIDELINES ISSUE D BY DIT AND CONSIDERING OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. IN MY CONSIDERE D OPINION, SALE INSTANCES NOTED BY A DVO CAN ONLY BE A STARTING POI NT FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY, WHICH NEED N ECESSARY MODIFICATIONS DEPENDING ON THE PECULIAR FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS TO BE VALUED. ALL THE RELEVANT F ACTORS, SUCH AS, TIME LAG, LOCATION, SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND FUTURE POTENTIAL ETC. NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE DETERMINING THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF SALE. CONSIDERING THE TO TALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, I AM SATISFIED T HAT THE DVO WAS CORRECT IN DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PRO PERTY IN HIS 5 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 CALCULATION AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIV E EFFECT OF ALL THE GERMANE FACTORS. 8. THE NEXT OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE LD. AR IS THAT P LOT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SMALL IN SIZE AND NOT IN PROPER SHAPE AND HENCE REDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. IN THE CONSIDERED OPINION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IF THE SIZE OF A PLOT IS SMALL, IT IS NATURAL THAT ITS FAI R MARKET VALUE WILL BE HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIALITY OF ITS EASY SALE . THIS OBJECTION RAISED BY ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE DVO IN A CUMULATIVE WAY, IN PARA 8.2 OF HIS REPORT, WHEN HE ESTIMATED THE VA LUE BY CONSIDERING THE `TIME LAG, LOCATION, SHAPE, SIZE AND FUTURE POTENTIAL OF THE PLOT. THIS OBJECTION, THUS, DOES NOT STAND ANY FURTHER LEGAL S CRUTINY. 9. NEXT OBJECTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT LITIGATION WAS GOING ON IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SOLD AND HENCE, FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SCALED DOWN. IN MY CONSIDERED OPI NION, THIS FACTOR HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY PROJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS THE LITIGATION WAS PREVALENT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH GOT SETTLED THERE AND THEN. THERE I S REFERENCE TO SOME LITIGATION AFTER THE INSTANT SALE OF PROPERTY ALSO. SINCE NO LITIGATION WAS PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SALE, THERE CAN BE NO REL EVANCE OF ANY FUTURE LITIGATION IN THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY. THE DVO H AS RIGHTLY NOTED THIS FACT IN PARA 8.2 OF HIS REPORT WHILE DEALING WITH T HE OBJECTION (1) OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION AS WELL, WHICH IS HEREBY REPELLED. 6 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 10. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FA IR MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS ONLY 10.57%. IT WAS URGED THAT SUCH A DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE IGNORED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON AN ORDER PASSED BY PUNE B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAHUL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2010) 38 DTR 0019 (PUNE). THIS ARGUMENT WAS OPPOSED BY LD. DR WHO RELIED ON AN ORDER OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HEILGERS DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD. VS . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KOLK ATA, (2013) 32 TAXMANN.COM 147 (KOLKATA-TRIB.) , IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TOLERANCE BAND PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 50C, WHERE DIFFERENCE IN STAMP DUTY VALUE AND STATED SALE CONS IDERATION WAS LESS THAN 15 PER CENT OF STAMP DUTY VALUE, SECTION 50C C OULD BE INVOKED. 11. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS SPE CIAL PROVISION WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED FOR DETERMINING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CERTAIN CASES. RELEVANT PART OF SECTION 50C(1) REA DS 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 ASSESS ED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HERE AFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORIT Y') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUC H 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 : . 12. SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT CL EARLY ARTICULATES THAT WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A R ESULT OF THE TRANSFER 7 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 BY AN ASSESSEE OF A PLOT ETC. IS LESS THAN THE VALU E ADOPTED ETC. BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED ETC. SHA LL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. IT IS THUS DIS CERNIBLE THAT SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PROVISION AND IT IS A SETTLED LEGA L POSITION THAT A DEEMING PROVISION MUST BE EXTENDED TO ITS LOGICAL C ONCLUSION. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS P. LTD. REPORTED IN (2010) 322 ITR 43 (B OMBAY) HAS HELD THAT: ONCE A DEEMING FICTION IS CREATED BY LAW, I T MUST BE GIVEN FULL AND FREE EFFECT, OF COURSE, IN RELATION TO THE AMBI T WITHIN WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO OPERATE. 13. FIRST AND THE FOREMOST POINT TO BE NOTED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 50C(1) IS THAT IT IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHICH SUBS TITUTES THE DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION WITH THE STAMP VALUE, WHEN THE F ORMER IS LESS THAN THE LATER. THIS PROVISION DEEMS THE STAMP VALUE AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN THE GIVEN SITUATION WITHOUT ANY EM BARGO, UNLESS THE CASE IS COVERED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), WHICH I WILL SHORTLY ADVERT TO. NOWHERE IN THE PROVISION, THERE IS ANY MENTION OF I GNORING THE STAMP VALUE IF THE DIFFERENCE IN STAMP VALUE AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS LESS THAN A PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE. SECO ND THING, WHICH IS WORTH NOTING IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS INTENDED A ND MADE ITS VIEW CLEAR WITH FULL FORCE, WHICH BECOMES MANIFEST FROM THE USE OF THE WORD `SHALL IN THE DEEMING PROVISION. ONCE THERE IS A C OMPULSORY COMMAND OF DEEMING THE STAMP VALUE AS THE FULL VALUE OF CON SIDERATION, THE MOMENT IT IS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATIO N, THE PROVISION GETS TRIGGERED AT THAT STAGE ITSELF. ONE CANNOT CLAIM T HAT THIS SUBSTITUTION 8 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 WILL BE MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWE EN THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AND STAMP VALUE IS MORE THAN A PARTIC ULAR PERCENTAGE, WHICH POSITION IS PLAINLY ABSENT IN THE PROVISION. ONCE SOME DIFFERENCE IS FOUND IN THE STAMP VALUE AND THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION ON A POSITIVE SIDE, SECTION 50C GETS ACTIVATED AND THE DEEMING FI CTION HAS TO COME TO GIVE LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO ITS PRESCRIPTION. THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF SEARCHING FOR ANY RATIONALITY OR EQUITY IN A DEEMIN G PROVISION. ONE CANNOT ARTIFICIALLY READ CERTAIN LIMITATIONS IN A D EEMING PROVISION, WHICH THE LAW HAS NOT SPELT OUT. 14. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE T HE LANGUAGE OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C, WHICH RUNS AS UNDER : - (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 VALUAT ION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY T HE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN D ISPUTED 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 CAPITA L 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 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPL Y IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 1 6A OF THAT ACT. 15. SUB-SECTION (2) IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISION OF SUB- SECTION (1), WHICH IMPLIES THAT AN ASSESSEE CAN CLA IM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSE D BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE 9 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 OF THE PROPERTY. WHEN SUCH AN OBJECTION IS TAKEN, I T BECOMES MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO M AKE A REFERENCE TO DVO, WHO, IN TURN, HAS TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AFTER ENTERTAINING OBJECTIONS FROM THE SID E OF THE ASSESSEE. THEN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 50C COMES INTO PLAY , WHICH STATES THAT WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) E XCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED ETC. BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED ETC. BY SUCH AN AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. I N OTHER WORDS, IF THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO IS LESS THAN THE STAMP VALUE, AS IS THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEN THE LOWER VALUE SO D ETERMINED BY THE DVO SHALL BE DEEMED AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERAT ION. 16. ON A CAREFUL CIRCUMSPECTION OF SECTION 50C, WHICH IS A DEEMING PROVISION AND PROVIDES FOR SUBSTITUTING THE SALE CO NSIDERATION WITH THE STAMP VALUE OR THE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURP OSE OF CALCULATING CAPITAL GAINS, THERE CAN BE NO WARRANT FOR IGNORING THE STAMP VALUE/VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO ETC. IN CASE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE STAMP VALUE/V ALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO IS LESS THAN A CERTAIN SPECIFIED PERCENTAG E. INVARIABLY, THE STAMP VALUE OR THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO ETC. WILL HAVE TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION, EVEN IF THE LATER IS A RUPEE LESS TH AN THE FORMER. 17. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE EXTANT CASE, IT I S FOUND THAT DVO, IN ALL FAIRNESS, SCALED DOWN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT AT 10 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 RS.46,96,400/- AS AGAINST STAMP VALUE OF RS.56,19,0 00/- AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND ENTERTAINING THE OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY LD. AR. IN VIE W OF FOREGOING FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ARGUMENT OF T HE LD. AR TO THE EFFECT OF IGNORING THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND TAKING THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDER ATION, WHEN THE FORMER IS MORE THAN THE LATER, DESERVES TO BE AND IS HEREB Y JETTISONED. I, ERGO, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- R.S. SYAL /VICE-PRESIDENT ' / PUNE; #$ / DATED : 13 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEAL)-1, NASHIK. 4. THE PR. CIT-1, NASHIK. 5. &'( ) , ) , - *+, , ' / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. (- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // $'0 / BY ORDER, 1 ), / PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , ' / ITAT, PUNE. 11 ITA NO. 1821/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 * DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 12.12.2018 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12.12.2018 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR. PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER