Smt. Sudha Jain, Jhansi V. I.T.O.-6(3), Jhansi

ITA 214/AGR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1974 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 54B; 50C; 54F; 37

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.214/AG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 SMT. SUDHA JAIN, VS. THEITO-6(3), ANAND HOSPITAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KARGUWAN JI ROAD, JHANSI JHANSI PAN NO. AEVPJ9944B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. DIPENDRA MOHAN MS. PRATHNA JALAN RESPONDENT BY : SH. WASEEM ARSHAD DATE OF HEARING : 05/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :26/04/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- II, AGRA DT. 12/12/2013. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN TREATING THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION AS A RESIDENTIAL LAND AND NOT A N AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ADOPTING THE VALUATION DONE FOR THE PAYMENT OF STAM P DUTY, AS (DEEMED) FULL CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF APPARENT CONSIDERATION INS TEAD OF APPARENT CONSIDERATION AS PER DEED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN IGNORING THE MANDATORY PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AND NOT REFERRING THE VALUATION OF THE PLOT OF LAND TO THE D.V.O FOR ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD RELIED UPON THE VALUATION REPORT OF A REGISTERED VALUER. 3. THAT CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT MAKI NG REFERENCE TO DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER FOR ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. 4. THAT CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN IGNORING THE PROVISION OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 54F OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHICH STATED THAT IF THE COST OF NEW ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE NET CONSIDERATION OF ORIGINAL ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45. OF INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. 2 5. THAT CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS BY MISINTERPRETING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND INVOKING THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 6. THAT CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC T BY NOT CONSIDERING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS. 3,20,424/- AND THE INVESTMENT MA DE BY THE APPELLANT IN A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF RS. 20,20,000/-, WHILE COM PUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 45 READ WITH SECTION 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 7. THAT CIT(A)-II, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC T BY NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SEASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT BY THE AO AS ALLEGED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER (BECAUSE THE NOTICE DATED 23.12.2011, REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND NOT FOR A.Y. 2009-10) THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT WAS PREV ENTED BY REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT EXPLAINING FULL AND CORRECT FACTS BEFORE THE LD. AO AND FOR THIS REASON ALONG THE ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QU ASHED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RETURN SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 3,67,278/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESEE FOR THE IMPUGNED AY. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT DURIN G THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HAD RETURNED CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SAME AS N IL. LD. AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CALCULATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C AND SUBSTITUTING THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION WITH THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD. HE THEREFORE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. DUE REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A FTER CONSIDERING WHICH, THE LD. AO COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE BY SUBSTITUTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 19,60 ,000/- BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 60,40,000/- AND FU RTHER AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF RS. 16,00,000/-. THE LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE CALCULATED AT RS. 46,00,424/ -. FURTHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF RS. 3,36,300/- AND UNDER SECTION 54F OF RS. 39,14,000/- ALSO AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY IT, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE AO FOR THE RE ASON THAT SINCE THE LAND SOLD WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND SINCE NO DETAIL AND EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE DURING THE IMPUGNED AY WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 54F WAS DENIED. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. 3 CIT(A) DISPUTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISION O F SECTION 50C(1) FOR COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ALSO THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F. LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DT. 12/12/20 13 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THE ISSUE OF APPLICATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(1). WHILE ON THE ISSUE REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F, PART RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,59,216/- WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN VERIFICATION TO BE MADE BY THE AO. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NUMBER 1 , 2 AND 3 & 7 IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT REFERRING THE VALUA TION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD DURING THE YEAR TO THE D.V.O FOR DETERMINING ITS TRUE VALU E FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(1) AND (2) OF THE ACT. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED T HAT IT HAD NEVER ACCEPTED THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND THE ORDER WAS P ASSED WITHIN A WEEK OF RAISING THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AMPLE EVIDENCES WERE ADDUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY LD. COUNSEL ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO SHOW TH AT THE PROPERTY WAS IN DISPUTE. ALTERNATIVELY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE CONSID ERATION ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET WAS THE CONSIDERAT ION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CAPITAL GAIN AND HAD NOT SUBSTITUTED TH E STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 50C(1) THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS BOUND TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE D.V.O FOR VALUATION EVEN IF THE ASSESSE HAD NOT MADE A 4 PRAYER TO THAT EFFECT THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUE EXC EEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. LD. COUNSE L RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR AGAR WAL VS. CIT IN G.A. NO. 3686 OF 2013 IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESTATED ARGUMENT. 7. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD ACCEPTED SUBSTITUTION OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS THE VAL UE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CAPITAL GAIN, DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THEREFORE IT WAS DEBARRED FROM CLAIMING OTHERWISE. LD. DR REFERRED TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING ASKING THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROP ERTY BE NOT SUBSTITUTED WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 11 POINT NO. 4.3 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER. LD. DR THEREAFTER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE REPRODUCED AT PAGE NUMBER 13 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER WHEREIN AS PER THE LD . DR THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD TO BE TAKEN A S A SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED. LD. DR THEREFORE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT NOW CLAIM THAT HE HAD DISPUTED T HE ADOPTION OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDING. LD. DR THEREFORE STATED THAT THERE WAS NO CASE FOR THE PRO VISION OF SECTION 50C(2) TO COME INTO PLAY IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONG IN STATING THAT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE D.V.O AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) O F THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTS PLA CED BEFORE US. 9. THE FACT ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT DU RING THE IMPUGNED AY THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND FOR A SALE CONSIDE RATION OF RS. 19,60,000/-. IN THE 5 RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CONSIDER ATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE LAND WA S TAKEN AT RS. 19,60,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTITUTED THE STAMP DUTY VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED AS P ROVIDED BY SECTION 50C OF THE ACT . THE SOLE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS REGAR DING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(2) IN THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C IS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN IN CERTAIN CASES. FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE AT H AND THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(1) AND (2) ARE BEING REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUI NG AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BU ILDING OR BOTH , IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTH ORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ST AMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) 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 PU RPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1), WHERE- (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORI TY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE, THE P ROVISION 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, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION 1. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, VA LUATION OFFICER SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF THE W EALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). EXPLANATION 2- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TH E EXPRESSION ASSESSABLE MEANS THE PRICE WHICH THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, ADOPTED OR ASSESSED, IF IT WERE REFERRED TO SUCH AU THORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY . A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION REVEALS THAT IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING IN THE NATURE OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BO TH CAPITAL GAIN IS TO COMPUTED 6 BY TAKING THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AS THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASE IT IS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL CONSIDE RATION RECEIVED. AN EXCEPTION TO THIS PROPOSITION IS PROVIDED IN SUB-SE CTION 2 WHERE IF THE ASSESSEE BELIEVES THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUE SO ADOPTED EXCEE DS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, HE CAN MAKE THIS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO THEN HAS TO BE REFER THE MATTER TO A VALUATI ON OFFICER. TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAND, IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHET HER THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE ADOPTION OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUE AS CONSIDERATION OR NOT. A PERUSAL OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AT PAPER BO OK -2, REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OF RS . 19,60,000/-AS THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION CAPITA L GAINS UNDER SECTION 48. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS SERV ED WITH A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 23/12/2011 REPRODUCED AT PAGE 26 OF CIT( A) ORDER, FOR SUBSTITUTING THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 60,40,0 00/- AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESEE VIDE HER LETTER DT. 27/12/2011 FILED A FRESH CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN, REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 27 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER BY TAKING THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PRO PERTY. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30/12/2011. THUS WITHIN A SPAN OF 7 DAYS AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSMENT WA S FRAMED BY TAKING THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS CONSIDERATI ON. CLEARLY ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO DISPUTE THE ADOPTION OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION. BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SHE HAD NEVER ACCEPTED THE ADO PTION OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION, SINCE SHE WAS HAVING VALUATION REPORT OF GOVT. APPROVED VALUER AS PER WHICH THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY CAME TO RS. 19.56 LACS ONLY WHICH WAS PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO. THE ASSESSEE ALS O CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL AS PER THE RE CORDS OF NAGAR NIGAM JHANSI AND ITS VALUATION AS CONFIRMED BY THE ADM (FINANCE & REVENUE) FOR STAMP 7 VALUATION PURPOSES WAS NOT MORE THAN 19.60 LACS . N ECESSARY EVIDENCES AS REPRODUCED AT PB 41-44 & 45-55 WERE FILED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS A REMAND REPORT ON THE ABOVE EVIDENCE WAS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) FROM THE AO WHO SUBMITTED A LETTE R FROM THE ASST. TOWN PLANNER JHANSI DT. 11/11/2013, STATING THE IMPUGNED LAND TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND FILING A LETTER FROM ADM(FINANCE) JHANSI DT. 13/11/2013 WAS ALSO PLACED CONFIRMING THE STAMP DUY VALUATION AS PER RESIDENTIAL RATES WHICH IS GIVEN AT PAGE 21 OF CIT(A) ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY CHALLENGED THE ABOVE B Y STATING THAT IN RESPONSE TO A RTI APPLICATION FILED THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER HAD IN HIS LETTER DT. 04/12/2013 STATED THAT THE USE OF THE LAND WAS RESIDENTIAL 2 4 METER PROPOSED ROAD AND PARK. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE AGAIN CHALLENGED THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE AO. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT EVEN BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESEE HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION ADOPTED BY TH E AO. 10. BEFORE US LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE MARKET VALU E OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS LESS THAN WHAT IS ASSUMED BY THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL W HEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS ONLY LATER ON THAT IT WAS CONVERTED TO R ESIDENTIAL. MOREOVER LD. AR STATED THAT THE LAND WAS UNDER DISPUTE AND CIVIL LI TIGATION WAS IN PROGRESS. DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION WERE PLACED BEFORE US AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONGWITH AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 SEEKING ADMISSION OF THE SAME F OR THE REASON THAT THE DOCUMENTS CAME INTO POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE PASSING OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHALLENGING THE ADOPTION OF STAMP DUTY VALUE AS CONSIDERATION FOR T HE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE SALE OF LAND ALL ALONG. IN V IEW OF THE SAME AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE T HE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO 8 FOR RECONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESEE CHALLEN GING THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND FURTHER DIRECT THE AO TO REFER THE MATTER TO TH E D.V.O AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. WE DIRECT THAT THE ASSES SEE BE GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE ALL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION AND AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING THE MATTER BE DECIDED IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. GROUND NO. 1, 2, 3 & 7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN GROUND NO. 4,5, & 6 THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLEN GED THE RESTRICTION OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT TO RS. 4,59,216/- AS AGAINST RS. 20,20,000/- CLAIMED. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS CONSEQUENT IAL TO THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION TO BE RENDERED BY THE AO IN PURSUANCE TO T HE DIRECTION GIVEN ABOVE, THE SAME IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON AFTER DECIDING THE ISSUE REGARDING APPLICATION OF PROVISI ON OF SECTION 50C(2). THE SAME MAY THEREFORE BE DECIDED THEREAFTER IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. 13. GROUND NO. 4,5 & 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE A LSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 26/04/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR