Satish K. C, Ramanagar V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagar

ITA 2018/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2444 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR AJEET
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2018 (BANG)/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014 - 15) SHRI SATISH K.C. (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT LINGAMMA) 25, H M DODDI MAIN ROAD, KANAKPURA, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT PAN NO.A KQPL3363F APPELLANT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), RAMNAGAR RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : S HRI MUKESH JAIN , CA REVENUE BY : SHRI KUMAR AJEET, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 - 11 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 11 - 2019 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE, AGAINST ORDER DATED 31/07/19 PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) - 3, B E NGALURU FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 3,BENGALURU HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM. THE ORDER BEING BAD IN LAW, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 2 2.THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 3,BENGALURU HAS ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN APPLYING C ORRECT LAW TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3.THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 3,BENG ALURU HAS NOT GIVEN ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4.THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 3,BENGALURU INSTEAD OF APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WAS FIXATED ON THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) - 3 BENGALURU HAS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER TO DVO. 6.THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) - 3 BENGALURU HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS RAISED REGARDING SECTION 159 7.THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 3,BENGALURU HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY CONSIDERING THE PRECEDENT WHICH WAS NOT RELEVANT IN THE GIVEN CASE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY IGNORING PRECEDENT RELIED BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS RELEVANT IN THE GIVEN CASE. 8.THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT ANY TIME OF HEARING THE CASE BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE FINAL ORDER. 9.IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED T HAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE I. QUASHED. II. ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THE AUTHORITIES DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: A SSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. LD. AO OBSERVED FROM DETAILS FILED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD CERTAIN PLOT OF ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 3 LAND FOR CONSIDERA TION OF RS. 1,64,24,000/ - AGAINST RS. 19,00,000/ - AS DECLARED IN SALE DEED. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THOUGH SHE WAS LIABLE FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TAX . LD.AO WAS OF THE OPINION , THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF SALE OF PROPERTIES. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS, ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION WAS REOPENED, AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO ASSESSEE REQUESTING TO SUBMIT COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD.AO ALSO CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS CLAIMS OF ASSESSEE . O N THE BASIS OF DETAILS FILED , LD.AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF CONVERSION AND LEVELING CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.21,87,699/ - DURING YEAR 1999 - 2000 , INTIMATIONS WERE ISSUED TO ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. 2.1 SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEES SON SH.SATHISH APPEARED BEFORE LD.A O AND INFORMED THAT ASSESSEE EXPIRED ON 07/04/18 AND SUBMITTED COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 07/12/17 BY DECEASED ASSESSEE WHEREIN TOTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED AMOUNTING TO RS.31,42,800/ - . IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY LD. AO IN PARA - 4 OF A SSESSMENT ORDER THAT INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT FROM CANARA B ANK WHERE DECEASED ASSESSEE HELD AN ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PERSON TO WHOM REMAINING PROCEEDS OF BANK ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITS IF ANY , WERE GIVEN. IN RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY LD.AO, CANARA BA NK REPLIED THAT ALL THE PROCEEDS OF RS.2,18,630/ - WAS SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF SH. SATHEESH KC AFTER OBTAINING LETTER OF AUTHORITY DULY SIGNED BY ALL CHILDREN OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 4 ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) AND 142 (1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO SH. SATHEESH K.C., BEING, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE LINGAMMA ( BEING DECASED ASSESSEE) . 2.2 . THE ASSESSMENT WAS THEREAFTER , COMPLETED BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,59,30,722/ - AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. LD.AO WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ADO PTED VALUE AS PER GUIDANCE VALUE , ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WAS PAID. ALSO THAT SINCE ASSESSEE PROD UCED PROOF IN RESPECT OF RS. 1,30, 645/ - BEING COST OF CONVERSION PAID TO S TATE G OVERNMENT, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG. 3. AGGRIE VED BY ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO UPHELD THE SAME. LD. CIT REJECTED CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF REFERRING MATTER TO DVO , AS ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXERCISED HIS RIGHT UNDER LAW TO DO SO. INSOFAR AS THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF COST OF IMPROVE MENT WAS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT (A) RECORDED THAT AS THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT SPENT RS. 1 .00 LAKH PER DAY FOR 20 DAYS THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 5. GROUND NO.1: LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE LATE LINGAMMA, EXPIRED ON 07/04/18, COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE IS PLACED AT PAGE 48 OF PAPER BOOK. I T HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 18/04/1 7, 17/07/17, 16/08/17, 05/09/17 PRIOR TO HER DEMISE AND T HEREAFTER ON 07/12/17 ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 34 - 47 OF PAP ER BOOK. ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 5 5.1 LD.AR ARGUED THAT ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT (A) IS BAD IN LAW , AS NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO OTHER LEGAL HAIRS OF ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. PLACING RELIANCE ON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF TIRTHA LAL DEY VS.SRIMATI BHUSAN MOYEE DASI AND ORS. REPORTED IN (1949) FCR 396 , IN S UPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT THAT LD. AO SHOULD HAVE ISSUED NOTICE TO ALL THE LEGAL H E IRS OF DECEASED ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. PER CONTRA , LD.SR.DR REFERRED TO PARA - 4 AND 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN , BANK MANAGER INFORMED A SSESSING O FFICER REGARDING LETTER OF AUTHORITY DULY SIGNED BY ALL CHILDREN OF LATE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF SH RI. SATHEESH KC IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEPOSITS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE ALSO D ID NOT INFORM LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , REGARDING DETAILS OF OTHER LEGAL H E IRS OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE COULD NOT BE HELD BAD IN LAW , AS DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY HER SON SH. SATHEESH K . C WITHOUT AN Y OBJECTION AND ASSES SMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN NAME OF SHRI SATHEESH K .C, BEING LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 7.1 WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD.AR OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA) . ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE SAME , THERE ARE CERTAIN FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHICH NEEDS TO BE REITERATED . IT WAS A CASE OF PA RTITION OF HUF PROPERTY UPON DEMISE OF KARTA LEAVING BEHIND HIS WIFE AND SONS BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREAFTER , ELDEST SON SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME KARTA OF HUF OF HIS FATHER AND REPRESENTED ESTATE OF HUF BEFORE ARBITRATOR FOR PARTITION. HONBLE S UPREME COURT ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 6 UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT , S O N BEING NEXT KARTA HAD EXISTING INTEREST, HE WAS REPRESENTING FAMILY INCLUDING HIS MOTHER. 7.2 . LD.AR PLACED RELIANCE UPON PAGE 28 OF PAPER BOOK BEING NOTICE ISSUED BY LD.PR. CIT DATED 15/07/16 ADDRESSED TO ASSESSEE, HER HUSBAND AND SIVAKUMAR KOM CHIKKAMUDDE GOWDA . HE SUBMITTED THAT REVENUE WAS AWARE ABOUT LEGAL HEIRS . H OWEVER , NOTICE WAS ISSUED ONLY IN THE NAME OF ONE BEING SH RI . SATHEESH K . C. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED SAID NOTICE DATED 15/07/16 PLACED AT PAGE 2 8. FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US , LD.AR FILED DETAILS OF LEGAL HE IRS OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. FURTHER , IT IS OBSERVED THAT NAME OF SRI.SATHEESH K.C. IS NOT MENTIONED IN SAID NOTICE, THEREFORE, IT IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT SUBMISSION OF LD.AR THAT DETAILS OF ALL LEGA L H E IRS OF DECEASED ASSESSEE ARE MENTIONED IN NOTICE DATED 15/07/16 PLACED AT PAGE 28 ISSUED BY LD.PR.CIT. 8.1 IT IS ONLY IN REPLY PLACED AT PAGE 65 OF PAPER BOOK ADDRESSED TO THIS TRIBUNAL THAT ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT (A), BANGALORE HAVING PASSED ONLY IN THE NAME OF SH RI . SATHEESH K.C HAS BEEN ALLEGED TO BE BAD IN LAW AND A T PAGE 67 , DETAILS OF LEGAL HE IRS HAVE BEEN PLACED , WHEREIN DECEASED ASSESSEE LEFT BEHIND , HUSBAND MR.CHIKKAMUDDE GOWDA, ELDER SON MR SIVAKUMAR, DAUGHTERS MRS.SUMITRA AND MRS.JYOYHI AND YOUNGEST SON MR SATHEESH KC HIMSELF. LD.AR HAS NOT PLACED BEFORE US , SALE AGREEMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO ALLEGED CAPITAL GAIN IN HANDS OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. GOING BY NOTICE AT PAGE 28 O F PAPER BOOK ISSUED BY PR. CIT INTIMATING INFORMATION AVAILABLE REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY DECEASED ASSESSEE , AND NAMES TO WHOM NOTICE WAS ADDRESSED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT EVEN DEPARTMENT WAS NOT HAV ING COMPLETE DETAILS OF ALL LEGAL H E IRS. IN FACT, WHEN NOTICES WERE ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 7 ISSUED, ASSESSEE WAS ALIVE , AS IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT ASSESSEE D EMISED ON 07 - 04 - 2018 WHICH WAS INFORMED BY SHRI SATHEESH,K.C. TO LD.AO DURING RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8.3 IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT BEFORE A SSESSING O FFICER, SHRI S A THEESH,K.C DID NOT OBJECT FOR NON INCLUSION OF OTHER LEGAL H E IRS, AND THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER IT IS OBSERVED THAT , IT IS UPON HIS REPRES ENTAT ION BEFORE LD. AO AFTER DEMISE OF HIS MOTHE R THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142 (1) WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SH RI . SATHEESH K.C AS LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ASSESSEE. HE DID NOT OBJECT TO LETTER OF AUTHORITY SIGNED BY LEGAL H E IRS IN HIS FAVOUR, WHICH W AS SUBMITTED BEFORE BANK A ND WAS BROUGHT TO NOTICE OF LD. AO BY BANK AUTHORITIES. ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT FILE DETAILS OF OTHER LEGAL HAIRS BEFO RE LD.AO, OR BEFORE LD.CIT (A). IT IS THUS, OBSERVED THAT LD.AO THEREFORE , ACTED IN BONA FIDES AND CONSIDERED SH R I . SATHEESH K.C TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED ASSESSEE ACTING ON BEHALF OF OTHER LEGAL HEIRS . FROM PAPER BOOK , IT IS OBSERVED THAT DEPARTMENT ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) AND 142(1) DATED 26/09/18 CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS TO SH RI . SATHEESH K . C IN CONNECTION TO RETURNS FILED BY DECEASED ASSESSEE. I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT , A T PAGE 55 SH RI . SATHEESH K . C RESPONDED TO SUCH NOTICES. ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED REPLY TO LD.AO VIDE LETTER DATED 30/10/18 IN VERNACULAR LANG UAGE PLACED AT PAGE 57 - 48 OF PAPER BOOK. THEREAFTER , REPLY HAS BEEN FILED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DATED 23 RD OF JULY 2019 BEFORE LD.CIT (A), WHEREIN NO PRAYER REGARDING ASSESSMENT REGARD ASSESSMENT BEING BAD IN LAW DUE TO NON - ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO OTHER LEGAL HAIRS HAS BEEN ALLEGED. ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 8 8.4 L D.AR IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED PLACED DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CHATURBHUJ AND OTHERS VS RECOVERY OFFICER AND ANR. REPORTED IN (1993) 199 ITR 739. ON PERUSAL OF THIS DECISION , IT IS OBSERVED THAT HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE REFERRED TO DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF FIRST A DDL . IT O VS MRS SUSEELA SADANA ND , WHEREIN HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE RESULT IS THAT IF A PERSON DIES EXECUTING WELL APPOINTED MORE THAN ONE EXECUTED OR DYES INTERSTATE LEAVING BEHIND MORE THAN ONE HEIR, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER SHALL PROCEED TO ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE DECEASED AGAINST ALL THE EXECUTORS ALL THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, AS THE CASE MAY BE. HOWEVER, HONBLE SUP REME COURT THEREIN EXPRESSED CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS AS UNDER: (1) THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE, THOUGH THERE ARE SEVERAL LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, ONE MAY REPRESENT THE WHOLE INTEREST OF THE DECEASED AND IN SUCH A CASE WHEN THERE IS COMPLETE REPRESENTATION OF THE I NTEREST OF THE DECEASED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENT MADE WOULD BIND THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED. (2) THERE CAN BE CASE WHERE, THOUGH ONE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IS SERVED, HE APPEARS IN THE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE CONSENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF THE OTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. IN SUCH CASES ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BIND THE ESTATE. ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 9 (3) THERE CAN BE A CATEGORY OF CASES WHERE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BONA FIDES AND DILIGENTLY BELIEVES ONE OR MORE PERSONS TO THE ONLY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED AND INITIATES PROCEEDINGS BY SERVING NOTICES ON THEM AND SUBSEQUENTLY IT IS FOUND THAT BESIDES THOSE SERVED THERE WERE OTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ALSO OF THE DECEASED. THERE IS NO REASON, IN SUCH CASES, BY THE GENERAL RULE AS INVOLVED IN THE FIELD OF CIVIL LAW AND WELL ANYONE SEATED IN CASE OF DAYA RAM VS SHYAM SUNDARY, 1954 SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED. 9. COMING TO F ACTS OF PRESENT CASE , AS NARRATED HEREINABOVE , CLEARLY DEPICTS THAT LD.AO WAS UNDER BONA FIDES BELIEF OF SH RI . SATHEESH K . C TO BE ILLEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ASSESSEE WHI CH HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED BY SH RI . SATHEESH K.C. 9.1 NONE OF THE DECISIONS , RELIED UPON BY LD.AR FILED IN PAPER BOOK DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF SUCH PECULIAR FACTS AS IN THE CASE BEFORE US. THE PROPOSITION THAT LD. AR TRYING TO IMPRESS UPON U S TO REDIRECT LD. AO TO ISSUE NOTICES TO REMAINING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF ASSESSEE AND TO RE - ASSESS ESCAPED INCOME ONCE AGAIN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT RE - ASSESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME CANNOT BE MADE AGAIN WHEN ONE ORDER OF ASSESSM ENT IS IN EXISTENCE . MORE SO , WHEN THE BAR OF LIMITATION WOULD ALSO COME IN THE WAY OF R EVENUE. 9.2 FURTHER , WE ARE OF THE VIEW , THAT PRESENT CASE CLEARLY FALLS UNDER EXEMPTIONS CARVED OUT BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON BY LD.AR REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 10 THUS , WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN LEGAL PLEA ADVANCED BY LD.AR AND THIS GROUND AND GROUND NO. 7 (I) STANDS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 , 5, 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION . GROUND NO. 3 IS IN RESPECT OF FIXING VALUE OF PROPERTY AS PER STAMP DUTY PAID AS PER SECTION 50 C OF THE A CT. 10. LD.AR SUBMITTED THA T LD.AO CONSIDERED SALE VALUE OF PROPERTY TO BE RS.1,64,24,000/ - AGAINST RS. 90,00,000/ - RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FOR PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD.AO I NVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C AND CONSIDERED DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVE D TO BE RS.1,64,24,000/ - . IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT REFER CASE TO DVO AND THEREFORE , PRICE SO ADOPTED BY LD.AO WAS NOT CORRECT. 11. ON THE CONTRARY , LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEVE R DISPUTED STAMP DUTY VALUE ADOPTED BY A SSESSING O FFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE , THERE WAS N O NEED TO REFER THE CASE TO DVO . HE THUS SUPPORTED ORDER PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11.1. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ACTUAL VALUE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE WAS RS.19,00,000/ - AS AGA INST RS.1,64,24,000/ - ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WAS PAID. IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT POSITION THAT ASSESSEE ACCEPTED FOR THE PRI C E BEING FIXED BY LD.AO TO BE THE PRICE AS CONSID ERED BY S UB R EGISTRAR FOR PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY. IN OUR VIEW , A SSESSING O FFICER IN ALL FAIRNESS SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE CASE TO VALUATION OFFICER TO AVOID ANY MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. ASSUMING THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT WELL INSTRUCTED IN LAW , A SSESSING O FFIC ER STILL SHOULD HAVE ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 11 DISCHARGED FUNCTION AS A BOUNDEN DUTY TO ACT FAIRLY BY REFERRING THE CASE TO DVO. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO LD.AO AND DIRECT A SSESSING O FFICER TO REFER THE CASE TO DVO AS PER LAW AND UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH VALUATION FRO M DVO , THE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE DE - NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND AND GROUND NO. 7 (II) RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. GROUND NO. 4 HAS BEEN RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.26 ,20,32 9/ - . IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS RAISED IN VIEW OF ADDITION CONFIRMED BY ASSESSING O FFICER DISALLOWING COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. 12.1 WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS AND GROUND RAISED IN LIGHT OF OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT (A). WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND MANNER IN WHICH THE GROUND IS RAISED. DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD.AO AGAINST COST OF IMPROVEMENT WAS RS.21,87,699/ - , AND LD.CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS REGARDING COST OF IMPROVEMENT WHICH SHE HAD CLAIMED TOWARDS LAND L EVELING AND FENCING CHARGES PAID TO LABOURERS AND FOR JCB AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 LAKH PER DAY FOR 20 DAYS. THOUGH , THIS GROUND DOES NOT ACTUALLY NARRATES TO BE THE SAME HOWEVER , CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO LD.AO FOR REFERRING TO DVO, LD.AO IS DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO THE ASPECT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT ALLEGED TO BE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE. IN THE EVENT , ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH BY WAY OF SOME EVIDENCE OF THE COST HAVING INCURR ED TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED , THE SAME SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS PER LAW. ITA NO.2018(B)/2019 12 ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . IN THE RESULT, A PPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE S TANDS ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 - 11 - 2019 SD/ - SD/ - (A.K.GARODIA) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 - 11 - 2019 AM COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5. DR 6. ITO (TDS) 7. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR