The ITO, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad V. Shri Rupesh Balwantbhai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad

ITA 1981/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 198120514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SN SOPARKARAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Business income; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , ( .) , BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.1981/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.1969/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 1. THE ITO WARD-8(1) AHMEDABAD 2. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT AHMEDABAD / VS. 1.RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT 11/12, SHIVALIK BLDG., 9, KALPANA SOCIETY NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 2. THE ITO WARD-8(1) AHMEDABAD % & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. ACLPB 0924 H ( %( / APPELLANTS ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENTS ) REVENUE BY : SHRI RAKESH JHA, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR, AR +, - .& / DATE OF HEARING 30/09/2015 /012 - .& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/10/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS-APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 17/04/2009 PER TAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO .1981/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO CONSIDER THE BUSINESS INCOME FROM SHAR E TRADING OF RS1,15,01,549/- AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ELIGIBLE FOR CONCESSIONAL TAX TREATMENT U/S.111. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD OUG HT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD .COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND T HAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 22/12/2008. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) TREATED THE SURPLUS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF TH E SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.1,15,01,549/-. THE AO MADE DISALLOWANC E U/S.14A OF RS.30,146/- AND RECOMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN (LTCG) ON SALE OF PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.19,16,476/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMEN T ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE AO ON THE I SSUE OF TREATMENT OF ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - THE SURPLUS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AS BUSINESS INCOME AND DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT THE INCOME AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (STC G) TAXABLE AT CONCESSIONAL RATE OF 10%. HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) CONFI RMED THE FINDING OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF RE-COMPUTATION OF LTCG BY INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ON SALE OF PROEPRTY AND A LSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE REVENUE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS REVENUES APPE AL IS AGAINST REVERSING THE FINDING OF THE AO AND DIRECTING THE A O TO TREAT THE INCOME AS STCG. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A O. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OB SERVED THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT, I.E. AY 2005-06, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED HI S TREATMENT AS STCG. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF B ROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS, THE MATTER TRAVELLED UPO THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD) IN ITA NO.706/AHD/2009 F OR AY 2006- 07 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMB HATT, DATED 31/08/2012, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN F AVOUR ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON F ACT THAT READS AS UNDER:- 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE SUBMISSIONS AS GIVEN BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE A.R. HAS RELIED UPON SEVERAL JUDIC IAL DECISIONS, AS ALSO THE PRESS NOTE ISSUED BY THE CBDT CLARIFYING T HE POSITION VIS- -VIS THE DRAFT OF THE CIRCULAR, WHICH HAD BEEN ISS UED EARLIER THAN THE CIRCULAR ITSELF. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE APPE LLANT WAS IN FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS TO EARN HI S LIVELIHOOD AND THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES OR OTHER FINANCIAL S ECURITIES WERE ENTIRELY UNCONNECTED WITH HIS FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT. I FIND THAT JUST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAPPENED TO ENTER INTO LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF RISING SHARE PRIC ES, HIS TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS BUSINESS TRANS ACTIONS. I ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE A.R. THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE EARNING LIVELIHOOD FROM FULL TIME EMPLOYME NT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT SUGGEST THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH AN ASSESSEE AMOUNT TO AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TR ADE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT AN ASSESSEE MAKES INVESTMENT IN FINANCIAL ASSETS NOT MERELY WITH A VIEW TO EARN PERIODICAL INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND OR INTEREST, BUT ALSO WITH A VIEW TO GET APPRECIATI ON OF THE INVESTMENT PARTLY IN ORDER THAT HE IS PROTECTED FRO M PERSISTENT INFLATION. BY FOLLOWING SEVERAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A.R., I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS TO BE SEEN AND IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT HAS BEEN ST RONGLY PLEADED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS TO MAKE INV ESTMENTS AND TO MAKE GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AND IT WAS NOT TO DO SH ARE TRADING. EVEN IN EARLIER YEAR, IE. A.Y.2005-06 THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2.16 CRORES WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN ASSESSMEN T MADE U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 7/12/2007. CONSIDERI NG THESE FACTS I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GAIN AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME AND SO I DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT THE INCOME AS SHORT ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - TERM CAPITAL GAIN TAXABLE AT CONCESSIONAL RTE OF 10 %. THIS GROUND IS THUS ALLOWED. 4.1. THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO HOW THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE EARLIER YEAR. WHEN THE REVENUE IN EARLIER YEAR, I.E. AY 2005-06 HAS TREATED THE SURPLUS OF SA LES AND PURCHASE AS STCG. MOREOVER, UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS, THE COO RDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER IN ITA NO.1705/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2006-07 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31/08/2012 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 8. . CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, IN OUR CON SIDERED OPINION AND AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT CITED BY LD.AR. AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CA SE OF MANISHA D SHAH (SUPRA), IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IN THE PRESE NT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND, THEREFORE, THE SURPLUS ARISING ON SUCH PURCHAS E AND SALE OF SHARES CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS PROFIT AND IT HAS TO BE TAXED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS HAS BEEN OFFERED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOPAL PUROHIT AS REPORTED IN 228 CTR 582 (MU M.) ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING ALL THESE JUDGEMENTS AND IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE. 4.2. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPH ELD. THUS, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - 5. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1969/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2006-07. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FROM LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN, THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDE RATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 5.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE JANTRI VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS SALES CONSIDERA TION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A LTCG OF RS.5,19,014/- O N THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY OF RS.8,71,400/-. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHA SED IN 1996 AT RS.1,52,500/-. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SUB RE GISTRAR HAD ASSESSED THE VALUE OF PROPERTY OF RS.21,86,200/- AS PER JANT RI RATE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE. THEREFORE, THE AO ADOPTED THE SALE CONSID ERATION AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR WAS MUCH IN EXCESS OF REAL MARKET VALUE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE VALUATION BEFORE THE AO, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE REFER RED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. TH E LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - (ITAT JODHPUR BENCH) IN THE CASE OF MANJULA SINGHAL VS. ITO IN ITA NOS.290 & 302/JU/2009 FOR AY 2004-05, DATED 09/02/2 011 :: REPORTED AT (2011) 10 TAXMANN.COM 45 (JODH.). 5.2. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AS PER SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE CONSIDE RATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE AD OPTED [OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE] BY ANY 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 ASSESSABLE] SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. HOWEVER, AS PER SUB-CLAU SE(2) OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED [OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE] BY THE ST AMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFIC ER AND WHERE ANY SUCH ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - REFERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS ( 2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND S UB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECT ION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1 957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. 6.1. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTR ATED THAT BEFORE THE AO THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUT HORITY WAS DISPUTED, THEREFORE, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE REFER THE ISSUE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C (2) OF THE ACT. THE COORDINATE BENCH UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS, IN THE CASE OF MANJULA SINGHAL VS. ITO(SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 9. THE INGREDIENTS OF THE SECTION ARE AS UNDER: (I) IF THE VALUATION ADOPTED OR ASSESSED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES IS MORE THAN THE STATED CONSIDERATION IN THE SALE DEED THEN , THE VALUATION FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES WILL BE DEEMED TO BE THE SALE C ONSIDERATION. (II) LF THE ASSESSEE DISPUTES THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TO DVO SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE ANY HIGHER FORUM. ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - (III) IF THE VALUE ASCERTAINED BY THE DVO IS LESS THAN TH E VALUATION AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THEN THE DVO'S VALUATION WILL BE ADOPTED. (IV) IF THE VALUATION AS PER THE DVO IS MORE THAN T HE VALUATION AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY THEN THE VALUATION AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS TO BE ADOPTED. 10. NOW, THE MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DISPUTES THE VALUATION AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS BOUND TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO OR NOT, IMPLIEDLY WHETHER THE TER M USED 'MAY' IS TO BE READ AS 'SHALL' OR NOT. WE FIND THAT IN SUBSECTION (2), AN EXCEPTION HAS BEEN CARVED OUT TO THE ADOPTION OF VALUATION AS PER STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY AND IF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SUB-SECTION ARE FULFILLED, THEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUATION AS PER STA MP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, CANNOT BE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID D OWN IN THE SAID SUB- SECTION. THE DISCRETION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITIONS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SUB -SECTION (2). EVERY QUASI- JUDICIAL AUTHORITY HAS TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION J UDICIOUSLY AND NOT ARBITRARILY. THE DISCRETION HAS BEEN CONTROLLED BY THE CONDITIONS CONTEMPLATED IN THE SECTION ITSELF. THEREFORE, IN O UR OPINION, THE TERM 'MAY' USED IN SUB-SECTION (2) IS TO BE READ AS 'SHALL' AN D IF THE STAMP VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS DISPUTE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN HE HAS TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL S UBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER THE MATTER TO THE D VO, THEREFORE, HE WAS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT NOWHERE IN SECTION 50C, SUCH A CONDITIO N HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE R ESTORE THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO REFER THE V ALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE AND THEREAFTER DECIDING THE ISSUE DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 10 - 6.2. IN THE LIGHT ABOVE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTO RE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER OBTAINING TH E REPORT FROM THE DVO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENC H RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANJULA SINGHAL VS. ITO(SUPRA). THUS, THIS GROU ND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. AS A R ESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1981/A HD/2009 IS DISMISSED, WHEREAS ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1969 /AHD/2009 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 16 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( . ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/ 10 /2015 5...+, .+../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1981/AHD/2009 (BY REVENU E) AND ITA NO.1969/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. RUPESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT (CROSS-APPEA LS) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 11 - !'#$%$&' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 678 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. :; )+78 , . 782 , 6 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;< =, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *: ) //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 6.10.15 (DICTATION-PAD 13 +- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..14/15.10.2015 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.16.10.2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.10.2015 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER