SHREE JITENDRA KUMAR ATREE, CHURU V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 20/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7260 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Reassessment proceedings; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 2(14); 48; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 20/JP/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHREE JITENDRA KUMAR ATREE, WARD NO.7, SADULPUR, CHURU. C UKE VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. PAN NO.: AIDPA 0645 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING: 31/08/2020 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/09/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/11/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 3. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL IS CALLED FOR HEARING. EVEN ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE TOOK ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL WHICH WAS GRANTED FOR TODAY I.E. ON 31/08/2020. THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAME ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 2 GROUND ON WHICH THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS ADJOURNMENT ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE. 4. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE L D. AO HAS ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT OBTAINING PROPER SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN DETERMINING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 18,89,362/-. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 18,89,362/-. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN, CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO, IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY CONSIDERING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.10,00,000/-. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN, COMPUTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 3 RS.17,105. THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. APPROPRIATE RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED. 6. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 5. GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THESE TWO GROUNDS WERE NEVER RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THESE ARE NOT ARISING FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PARTICULARLY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE LD DR HAS OBJECTED TO THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED SUCH GROUNDS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 3. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER:- 1. LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE VALUATION OF LAND TREATING THE SAME AS DOMESTIC/COMMERCIAL LAND AS AGAINST AGRICULTURAL LAND ALSO AS PER RECORDS OF DISTT. ADMINISTRATION, THE USE OF WHICH WAS NEVER CONVERTED. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. (1), LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.16,98,023/- (RS.18,89,360 1,91,339) ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERMS CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND. ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 4 EVEN AS PER FORM NO. 35, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONLY TWO GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA NO.3 NOTED ABOVE. THUS, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2, THOUGH, IS A LEGAL ISSUE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND/PLEA. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE EVEN HAS NOT FILED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O. AND IN ABSENCE OF THE REASONS RECORDED, THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DECIDED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT RAISING THIS GROUND, HAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO HOW THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER OBJECTED TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HAS NOT SOUGHT ANY LEAVE OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO RAISE SUCH A FRESH PLEA/GROUND FIRST TIME, THEREFORE, WE REJECT GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. GROUND NO. 3 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 18,89,362/- MADE BY THE A.O. THE FACTS EMERGING FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). THE A.O. RECEIVED INFORMATION REGARDING SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH TWO OTHER CO-OWNERS FOR A SUM OF RS. 10.00 LACS SHOWN IN THE SALE DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 71,13,637/-. ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 5 THE A.O., ACCORDINGLY, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 26/09/2016 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 08/05/2017 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,91,339/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE A.O. ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ADOPTING THE DEEMED FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 71,13,637/- AND 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 23,71,212/-. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE ADOPTION OF DEEMED FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION ON WHICH THE A.O. CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY AND CALLED FOR THE ENTIRE RECORD FROM THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY ALONGWITH INSPECTION REPORT. FURTHER THE A.O. REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO/AVO FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE DVO DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT AT RS. 57,19,400/- AND 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 19,06,467/-. THE A.O. ADOPTED SALE CONSIDERATION AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO/AVO AT RS. 19,06,467/- AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER ALLOWING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION BEING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/01/1981 AT RS. 18,89,362/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.2 AS UNDER: ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 6 4.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING THE APPELLANT HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE SUBMISSION IS AS UNDER AND ARGUED ON THE SAME BASIS. 'THE LAND INHERITED BY THE APPELLANT WAS BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THAT IS WHY FOR INDEXATION, LD. AO ADOPTED RATE OF RS. 1,320/- PER BIGHA ON BASIS OF SALE INSTANCE OF 16.06.1981. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT, IN CALCULATING CAPITAL GAINS BASED ON REPORT OF DISTT. VALUATION OFFICER, ID. AO HAD IGNORED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (1) THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NEVER CONVERTED IN DOMESTIC OR COMMERCIAL LAND WHEREAS THE DVO HAD APPLIED DOMESTIC RATE IN DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE. (2) WHERE RATE PER BIGHA OF BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE YEAR 1981-82 WAS ADOPTED FOR INDEXATION UNDER SECTION 48 OF IT ACT, THE RATE PER BIGHA OF BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE YEAR OF SALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED. IN THIS CASE, WHILE ADOPTING RATE PER BIGHA OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF DOMESTIC/COMMERCIAL WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. (3) LD. AO HAD NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE REPORT OF THE SUB- DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH, ACCEPTING IT TO BE BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT, THE VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, ON IDENTICAL FACTS, COULD ONLY BE APPLIED. THE RATE OF BARE AGRICULTURAL CANNOT BE RS.57,19,400/- FOR THE TOTAL LAND IN ANY CASE. ON THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE STATUTORY POSITION DETERMINED AND DECIDED BY THE SDM, RAJGARH, ID. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING SHARE OF THE APPELLANT IN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS.19,06,466/-(I.E. 1/3RD OF TOTAL VALUE OF RS.57,19,400/) AND TAKING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 18,89,362/-. RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS SUBMITTED DECLARING CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,91,360/- ON 1/3RD SHARE IN SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE TOTAL LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS.10,00,000/-. AS SUBMITTED IN SUBMISSION FOR GROUND NO. (1) ABOVE, THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, RAJGARH (CHURU) HAD RECORDED THE CURRENT POSITION IN RESPECT OF NATURE AND USE OF SOLD LAND AS PER ORDER CUM DESCRIPTION OF WORK DATED 30.10.2012 THAT ON SPOT VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT LAND IS READY FOR USE OF AGRICULTURE. ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 7 MORE SO WHEN BASIC RATE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE YEAR 1981-82 WAS APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION, IN THE SAME WAY, FAIR MARKET RATE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE DATE OF SALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT. THE DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.18,89,362/- AS AGAINST DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,91,360/- IS THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED ACT ON PART OF THE LD. AO. IT IS REQUESTED TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ID. AO WITH DIRECTION TO ADOPT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE DATE OF SALE AND NOT THE VALUE OF LAND USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OBJECTION AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION BY TAKING SALE INSTANCE OF LAND ON 16/06/1981. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND THEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND INSTEAD OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE LAND BEING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT IN DISPUTE. HOWEVER, DUE TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA OVER THE PERIOD, THE LAND IS NO MORE EXEMPTED U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THIS FACT BY DECLARING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THIS LAND. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE LOCATION OF THE LAND WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF SALE. SINCE THIS LAND IN QUESTION HAS BEEN INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH TWO OTHER LEGAL HEIRS, THEREFORE, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 8 01/04/1981 WOULD BE TAKEN AS PER THE STATUS OF THE LAND ON THAT DATE. THE SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NOT ALTER THE STATUS OF THE LAND AS ON 01/04/1981. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 BY TAKING A COMPARATIVE SALE INSTANCE. THE SECOND OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY THE DVO U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT, THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS IT IS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. HOWEVER, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE BY BRINGING ANY MATERIAL OR FACTS CONTRARY TO THE SAID VALUATION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 4.3 AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL BEFORE ME. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.16,98,023/- MAKING OBSERVATION IN ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE PRESENTED A CONVEYANCE DEED FOR REGISTRATION ON 14-01-2013 BEFORE SUB-REGISTRAR RAJGARH DISTRICT- CHURU FOR SALE OF LAND BEARING KHASARA NO 327 HAVING 1/3 SHARE IN THE PROPOSED LAND FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,00,000/-. ON RECEIPT OF THE SAID CONVEYANCE DEED, THE STATE AUTHORITY INSPECTED THE PROPERTY ON 20-012013. ON INSPECTION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION, THE STATE AUTHORITY FOUND THE NATURE OF PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. MORE OVER THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN 1/2 KM. OF MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF RAJGARH AND AT 70 METERS DISTANCE AT RAJGARH - HISSAR ROAD. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF LAND I.E. RESIDENTIAL AND ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 9 COMMERCIAL, THE SUB REGISTRAR REFERRED THE MATTER TO DIG (STAMPS), BIKANER WITH COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT AND VALUATION REPORT (AFTER VISIT OF PROPERTY). AFTER CONSIDERING THE INSPECTION REPORT AND VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY SUB-REGISTRAR, THE DIG (STAMPS), BIKANER AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE TRANSACTING PARTIES DETERMINED THE COST OF LAND AT RS.71,13,637/- VIDE ORDER NO. 65/13 DATED 30-01-2014. THIS OFFICE MADE REQUEST VIDE LETTER NO. 518 DATED 15-09-2017 TO THE DIG (STAMPS), BIKANER (AT PRESENT SIKAR) TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF COMPLETE CASE FILE. THE COPY OF COMPLETE CASE FILE RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 04-10-2017FROM THE OFFICE OF DIG (STAMPS), SIKAR VIDE THEIR OFFICE LETTER NO. 2471 DATED 29-09-2017. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NEVER CONVERTED IN DOMESTIC OR COMMERCIAL LAND WHEREAS THE DVO HAD APPLIED DOMESTIC RATE IN DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE. WHERE RATE PER BIGHA OF BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE YEAR 1981-82 WAS ADOPTED FOR INDEXATION UNDER SECTION 48 OF IT ACT, THE RATE PER BIGHA OF BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE YEAR OF SALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED. IN THIS CASE, WHILE ADOPTING RATE PER BIGHA OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF DOMESTIC/COMMERCIAL WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. LD. AO HAD NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE REPORT OF THE SUB- DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH, ACCEPTING IT TO BE BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT, THE VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, ON IDENTICAL FACTS, COULD ONLY BE APPLIED. THE RATE OF BARE AGRICULTURAL CANNOT BE RS.57,19,400/- FOR THE TOTAL LAND IN ANY CASE. ON THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE STATUTORY POSITION DETERMINED AND DECIDED BY THE SDM, RAJGARH, ID. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING SHARE OF THE APPELLANT IN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AT ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 10 RS.19,06,466/-(I.E. 1/3RD OF TOTAL VALUE OF RS.57,19,400/-) AND TAKING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.18,89,362/-. RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS SUBMITTED DECLARING CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,91,360/- ON 1/3RD SHARE IN SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE TOTAL LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS.10,00,000/-. AS SUBMITTED IN SUBMISSION FOR GROUND NO. (1) ABOVE, THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, RAJGARH (CHURN) HAD RECORDED THE CURRENT POSITION IN RESPECT OF NATURE AND USE OF SOLD LAND AS PER ORDER CUM DESCRIPTION OF WORK DATED 30.10.2012 THAT ON SPOT VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT LAND IS READY FOR USE OF AGRICULTURE. MORE SO WHEN BASIC RATE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE YEAR 1981-82 WAS APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION, IN THE SAME WAY, FAIR MARKET RATE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE DATE OF SALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT. THE DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.18,89,362/- AS AGAINST DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.1,91,360/- IS THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED ACT ON PART OF THE LD. AO. IT IS REQUESTED TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ID. AO WITH DIRECTION TO ADOPT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF BARE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE DATE OF SALE AND NOT THE VALUE OF LAND USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. I PERUSED THE RECORD I FIND THAT THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT. THE A/0 TAKEN THE CORRECT VALUE OF RS.19,06,467/- AND CALCULATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.18,89,362/- AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT AND VALUE AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, I CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.18,89,362/-. THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT ALLOWED. ITA 20/JP/2019_ SHREE JITENDRA KR. ATREE VS ACIT 11 ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 01/09/2020 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHREE JITENDRA KUMAR ATREE, CHURU. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 20/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR