Smt. D.Lalitha, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1833/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0747 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Reason to believe
• Section: 50C; 54F; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENN AI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.1833/MDS./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 SMT D. LALITHA, NO.28,NATARAJ LAYOUT, RAMALINGA NAGAR CROSS NO.4,K K PUDUR, COIMBATORE 641 038. VS. DY. COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, COIMBATORE. PAN ADKPI 8894 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, ADDL. CIT D.R DATE OF HEARING : 11.02.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.02 .13 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, COIMBATORE DATED 08.09.11 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA KING ADDITION ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 2 ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BASED ON PROV ISIONS OF SEC.50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE SOLD 2.72 ACRES OF LAND JOINTLY WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IN TWO LOTS OF 0.56 ACRES AND 2.16 ACRES, AND ASSESSEE SHARE BEING 1/9TH AND 1/3 RD RESPECTIV ELY IN THE PROPERTIES. THE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD RESPECTIVELY FOR ` 1,40,00,000/- AND ` 5,40,00,000/-, ASSESSEES SHARE BEING ` 15,55,555/- AND ` 1,80,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS OF ` 81,04,359/- BY ADOPTING THESE SALES VALUES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STATE G OVERNMENTS STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY VIZ. DISTRICT REGISTRAR O FFICE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR THE ABOVE TWO PROPERTIES WAS ` 1,68,00,000/- AND ` 6,48,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT, THIS VALUE WAS TO BE TREATED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERA TION RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE O F SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAINS BY ADOPTING THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF ` 1,68,00,000/- TAKING 1/9 TH THEREOF BEING ` 18,66,667/- AND ADOPTING THE VALUE OF ` 6,48,00,000/- TAKING 1/3 RD THEREOF BEING ` 216,00,000/- AND THEREAFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR INDEXED COST OF ` 51,71,906/- AND EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT OF ` 66,55,411/- ARRIVED AT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 1,16,39,350/-IN PLACE OF ` 81,04,359/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNED INCOME. ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 3 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A). HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE MARKET VALUE WAS DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT COL LECTOR, COIMBATORE ON A REFERENCE UNDER APPEAL MADE BY THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER CO-OWNERS, NAMELY SHR I D.VEDHANAND AND SMT. D.VANAJA DEVI, AFTER THE MATTE R HAD TRAVELLED BEFORE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 IN ITA NO.1218/MDS./11 IN THE CASE O F SHRI D.VEDHANAND AND VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28 TH JUNE, 2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT. D.VANAJA DEVI IN ITA NO.1653/MDS./11 RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH. IT WAS THEREFORE PRAYED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIREC TIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OTHER CO-OWNERS. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE FO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER TWO CO- OWNERS. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S MT. D.VANAJA DEVI HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 4 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY HAD OBJECTED TO THE GUIDELINE VALUE AND THIS OBJECT ION WAS REFERRED TO SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF STAMPS (SDCS) FOR FI XING THE GUIDELINE VALUE. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT ASS ESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO REFER THE VALUATION TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. A S PER THE REVENUE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM REFERENCE FOR VAL UATION OF SUCH PROPERTY TO VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT DUE TO THE REASON THAT AT PURCHASERS BEHEST, THE VALUATION WAS REFERRED T O SDCS WHO HAD FIXED THE GUIDELINE VALUE. WE FIND THAT IN THE CAS E OF B.N. PROPERTIES HOLDINGS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THIS TRIBUNAL WAS SEIZED OF A VERY SIMILAR ISSUE. THERE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER ASSESSEE COULD CLAIM A REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFF ICER WHEN SDCS HAD FIXED THE GUIDELINE VALUE BASED ON A REQUE ST FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. AFTER ANALYZING THE REL EVANT CLAUSES OF THE TAMIL NADU STAMP (PREVENTION OR UNDERVALUATION OF INSTRUMENTS) RULES, 1968 AS ALSO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER AT PARAS 7 TO 10:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS. THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT PROPERTY WAS I NITIALLY VALUED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AT RS. 1,46,43,635 AND T HE PURCHASER HAVING OBJECTED TO THIS VALUE, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TOT HE SDCS WHO FIXED THE GUIDELINE VALUE AT RS. 1,28,03,500. THERE FORE, ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEECOULD NOT CLAIM A REFERENC E OF VALUATION OF SUCH PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTME NT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE'S GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE VALUE AS FIXED BY THE SDCS WAS NOT ON A REFERENCE AS SPECIFIED IN CL. (B) OF S UB-S. (2) OF S. 5OC OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SDCS WAS THE SOLE AU THORITY UNDER THE STAMP ACT AUTHORISED FOR FIXING MARKET VALUE. INOTH ER WORDS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SUCH FIXATION OF MARKET VALUE BY THE SDCS DID NOT TAKE AWAY ITS RIGHT TO REQUIRE REFERENCE TO THE DVO. TO SOLVE THIS RIDDLE, IT IS NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO SUB-S. (2 ) OF S. 5OC OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: '(2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S. (1), WHERE- (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY AO THAT THE VALU E ADOPTED OR ASSESSED (OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE) BY THE STAMP V ALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SO (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED (OR ASSESSED O R ASSESSABLE) BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SO (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY O THER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 5 THE AO MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISION S OF SUB- SS. (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF S. 16A, CL. (I) O F SUB-SO(1) AND SUB-SS. (6) AND (7) OF S. 23A, SUB-SO (5) OF S. 24, S. 34AA, S. 35 AND S. 37 OF THE WT ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MO DIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELA TION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER SUB-SO (1) OF S. 16A OF THAT A CT.' 8. WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE OF S. 5OC WAS QUESTIONED, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K. R. PALANISAMY & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2008) 219 CTR (MAD) 323 : (2008) 13 DTR (MAD) 121 : (2008) 306 ITR 61 (MAD), WHILE UPHOLDIN G THE VALIDITY OF SAID SECTION, HELD AS UNDER AT PARAS 29 TO 33 OF IT S ORDER (P. 77) : '29. EVERY SAFEGUARD HAS BEEN PROVIDED UNDER THE PR OVISIONS OF THE STAMP ACT TO THE PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES AS TO THE REAL VALUE FOR WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET HAS B EEN TRANSFERRED. AS PER THE PROVISION OF S. 47A OF THE STAMP ACT, IF THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE MARKET VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF TRANSFER, HAS NOT BEEN TRULY SET FORTH IN THE INSTRUMENT, HE WOULD AFTER R EGISTERING SUCH INSTRUMENT, REFER THE SAME TO THE COLLECTOR FOR DET ERMINATION OF THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY. ON RECEIPT OF TH E REFERENCE, THE COLLECTOR SHALL, AFTER GIVING THE PARTIES A REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER HOLDING AN ENQUIRY IN SUCH MA NNER AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY RULES MADE UNDER THE STAMP ACT DETERM INE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 30. RULE 4 OF THE TAMIL NADU STAMP (PREVENTION OF U NDERVALUATION OF INSTRUMENTS) RULES, 1968, PROVIDES THE PROCEDURE ON RECEIPT OF REFERENCE OF THE INSTRUMENT UNDER S. 47A. AS PER R. 4, ON RECEIPT OF A REFERENCE UNDER SUB-SO (1) OF S. 47A, FROM A REGI STERING OFFICER, THE COLLECTOR SHALL ISSUE A NOTICE IN FORM I, TO EV ERY PERSON BY WHOM, AND TO EVERY PERSON IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED, INFORMING HIM OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REFER ENCE AND ASKING HIM TO SUBMIT TO HIM HIS REPRESENTATIONS, IF ANY, I N WRITING TO SHOW THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRUL Y SET FORTH IN THE INSTRUMENT, AND ALSO TO PRODUCE ALL EVIDENCE TH AT HE HAS IN SUPPORT OF HIS REPRESENTATION, WITHIN 21 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. FURTHER, IF NECESSARY THE CO LLECTOR MAY RECORD A STATEMENT FROM PERSONS TO WHOM A NOTICE UNDER SUB -R. (1) HAS BEEN ISSUED, WHICH INCLUDED THE ASSESSEE, THE TRANSFEROR . THE COLLECTOR MAY EVEN INSPECT THE PROPERTY AFTER DUE NOTICE TO T HE PARTIES CONCERNED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS, R ECEIVED FROM THE PERSON TO WHOM NOTICE UNDER SUB-R. (1) HAS BEEN ISSUED, AND AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM , THE COLLECTOR WOULD PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING PROVISIONALLY DETERM INING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE DUTY PAYABLE THEREO N. RULE 5 OF THE RULES PROVIDES FOR PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE, WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY EXTRACTED SUPRA. 31. AFTER SO ARRIVING AT THE PROVISIONAL MARKET VAL UE, THE COLLECTOR SHALL COMMUNICATE THE COPY OF HIS ORDER PROVISIONAL LY DETERMINING ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 6 THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES, TO ALL THE PERS ONS AND FURTHER CALL UPON THE PARTIES TO LODGE THEIR OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO SUCH DETERMINATION OF THE MARKET VALUE WITHIN A SPECIFIE D TIME. THE COLLECTOR SHALL ALSO HEAR THE PARTIES ON THEIR OBJE CTIONS ON A SPECIFIED DATE. THEREAFTER THE COLLECTOR WOULD CONS IDER THE REPRESENTATIONS IN WRITING AND THOSE URGED AT THE T IME OF HEARING AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND PASS AN ORDER W ITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FIRST NOTICE DETERMINING TH E MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE DUTY PAYABLE ON THE INSTR UMENT AND COMMUNICATE THE ORDER SO PASSED. 32. AS PER SUB-SO (5) OF S. 47A, ANY PERSON AGGRIEV ED BY AN ORDER OF THE COLLECTOR MAY APPEAL TO THE CHIEF CONTROLLING R EVENUE AUTHORITY. AS AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER, A REMEDY OF FURTHER APPEAL IS ALSO AVAILABLE UNDER SUB-SO (10) OF S. 47A TO THE HIGH C OURT. 33. SUB-SS. (2) AND (3) OF S. 5OC PROVIDE FURTHER SAFEGUARD TO THE ASSESSEE, IN THE SENSE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE AO THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIE S EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSES SED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY, THE AO COULD REFER T HE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO THE DVO. ON SUCH REFERENCE, IF THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER IS MORE THAN TH E VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY, THE AO SHA LL ADOPT THE MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHOR ITY. THUS, A COMPLETE FULL PROOF SAFEGUARD HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED THE REAL VALUE. THUS, WHAT IS STATED IN S. 5OC AS A REAL VALUE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A NOTIONAL OR ARTIFICIAL VALUE AND SUCH REAL VALUE IS DETERMINABLE ONLY AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE STATUTORY PRO VISIONS STATED SUPRA. THERE IS NO INDICATION EITHER IN THE PROVISI ONS OF S. 5OC OF THE IT ACT OR S. 47A OF THE STAMP ACT OR RULES MADE THE REUNDER ABOUT THE ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE. HENCE, THE CON TENTION THAT S. 5OC IS ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ART. 14 CANNOT BE ACC EPTED. INCIDENTALLY, WE CAN REFER THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF T HE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. SMT. P. LAXMI DEVI (2008) 4 SCC 720, IN WHICH EVEN THE ONEROUS CONDITION OF DEPOSIT OF FIFTY PER CENT, OF THE DEFICIT DUTY FOR FILING THE APPEAL TO ''THE COLLECTOR IS ALSO UPHELD.' 9. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDIT Y OF S. 5OC OF THE ACT WAS UPHELD AFTER NOTING THE VARIOUS SAFEGUA RDS AVAILABLE TO AN AGGRIEVED PERSON REGARDING VALUATION OF A PROPER TY UNDER THE INDIAN STAMP ACT AS WELL AS THE IT ACT. AT PARA 33, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD THA T SUB-SS. (2) AND (3) OF S. 5OC ARE FURTHER SAFEGUARDS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE SAFEGUARDS GIVEN AT SUB-SS. (2) AND (3) OF S. 5OC OF THE ACT ARE IN ADDITION TO THE SAFEGUARDS UNDER THE STAMP ACT. THE REFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT ONCE A VALUATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE SDCS, THERE CAN BE NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE SPEC IFICALLY DISPUTED THE VALUE FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUT HORITY. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS RIGHTLY POINT ED OUT THAT, EXCEPT THE COLLECTOR, NO AUTHORITY OF THE REGISTRAT ION DEPARTMENT CAN FIX THE MARKET VALUE AND STAMP DUTY PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF AN ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 7 INSTRUMENT, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RI. REV. LAWRENCE VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU ( 1998) 1 CTC 334. AS LONG AS THE PROPER AUTHORITY FOR VALUATION UNDER THE STAMP ACT IS THE SDCS, WE CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH A VALUATION MADE BY THE SAID AUTHORITY ON A REFERENCE BY THE REGISTRAR IS EQUIVA LENT TO A 'REFERENCE, APPEAL OR REVISION MADE BY AN ASSESSEE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY OR HIGH COURT' AS MENTIONED IN CL. (B) OF SUB-SO (2) OF S. 5OC OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD OBJECTED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE VALUE AS FIXED BY THE SDCS A S THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER AND REQUESTED THE AO FOR A REFERENCE TO THE DVO. IN THE CASE OF MEGHRAJBAID VS . ITO (SUPRA), THE JODHPUR BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AT PARA 4 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER: '4. AFTER EXAMINING THE PROVISION EXTRACTED HEREINA BOVE IN ITS LETTERS AND SPIRIT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN C ASE THE AO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO LOWER CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY HIM THEN HE SHOULD REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR GETTING ITS MARKET RATE ESTABLISHED AS ON DATE OF THE SALE TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT SALE CONSIDERATION. I F THIS PROVISION IS READ IN THE SENSE THAT IF THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED W ITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THEN HE 'MAY' OR 'MAY N OT' SEND THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO THE DVO THEN IN THAT CASE T HIS PROVISION WOULD BE RENDERED REDUNDANT. THE WORD 'MAY' USED IN THIS SUB- SECTION SIGNIFIES THAT IN CASE THE LEARNED AO IS NO T SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE 'SHOULD' REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR THE MENTIONED PURPOSE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (1997) 105 STC 152 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TH E DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE REBUTTABLE ONE. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THIS CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS AND PRECED ENTS RELIED ON BEFORE US. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE BEFITTING REPLY OF ALL THE QUERIES AROSE IN OUR MINDS AS WELL AS RAISED BY THE PARTIES IS THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE L EARNED AO WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE SHALL REFER THIS MATTER OF VALUAT ION IN THE LIGHT OF SUB-S. (2) OF S. 5OC TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS PLOT SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S. 5OC OF THE ACT. THE OTHER CONNECTED GROUNDS ARE ALSO RELATE TO THIS MAIN GROU ND. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE WOULD DO AS DIRECTED ABOVE AND AL SO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW.' 10. THUS THE FAILURE OF THE AO TO REFER VALUATION TO TH E VALUATION OFFICER DEFINITELY PREJUDICED THE ASSESSEE TO ITS D ETRIMENT AND ALSO TOOK AWAY FROM IT, A VALUABLE RIGHT VESTED IN IT UN DER THE STATUTE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM FOR REFERRING THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE VALU ATION OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-S. (2) OF S. 50C OF THE ACT, AND THEREAFTER FOR PROCEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EDICT OF THE STAT UTE. ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 8 HERE ALSO, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS FAI LURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH PREJUDICED THE ASSESSEE TO ITS DETRIMENT AND TOOK AWAY A VALUABLE RIGHT VESTED IN HER. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO A.O. WITH DIRECTION TO REFER THE VALUATION OF THE P ROPERTY TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER AND THEREAFTER PROCE ED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE A BOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL QUOTED ABOVE. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 9 ITA. 1833 /MDS/11 10