RAVI SACHETI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 214/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5351 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Business income; Competent authority
• Section: 50C; 54

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI RAVI SACHETI 176, HALDIYON KA RASTA JOHRI BAZAR,JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2 (1) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABXPS 3597 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL , CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT -DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 07/01/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/03/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)1, JAIPUR DATED 28-02-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ENHANCING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM RS. 21,20,866/- TO RS. 31,48,871/- AND SH ORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM RS. 34,84,270/- TO RS. 56,19,787/- AS COM PUTED BY THE AO WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF TRAN SACTION AND BY GROSSLY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION MADE AND EVIDENCE A DDUCED THUS THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ENHANCING THE INCOM E FROM CAPITAL GAIN DESERVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 2 1.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS BIFURCATED THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TER M CAPITAL GAIN BY NOT PROPERLY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE HON' BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS ARE - THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3), SAME WAS ASSE SSED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY HOLDING THE SAME AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATU RE OF TRADE. IN THE FIRST ROUND ISSUE TRAVELLED TO ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR WHICH BY VIDE ORDER DATED 24.06.2011 IN ITA NO. 939/JP/2010 (ASSE SSEES APPEAL) AND ITA NO. 1118/JP/2010 (DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED GAINS FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE ITAT FURTHER HELD THAT THESE GAINS ARE TO BE TAXED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (FOR WHICH, ASSE SSEE WAS HELD TO BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F) AND THE GAINS ARISI NG OUT OF THE TRANSFER OF BUILDING WAS TO BE TAXED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN . FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF LTCG & STCG IN ACCORDANCE WITH SU CH TERMS, THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE LD. AO. THE RELEVANT OBS ERVATION OF ITAT IN PARA 2.12 PAGE 16 ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 3 2.12 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITI ON, WE HOLD THAT THE PROFIT ARISING FROM THE SALE OF SHOPS IS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN BECAUSE THE DOMINANT IN TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WA S TO HOLD IT AS INVESTMENT. EVEN AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING THE ASSESSEE HAS KEPT 50% OF THE BUILDING COMPLEX FOR HIS OWN PURPOS ES AND HIS OWN BUSINESS IS BEING CONDUCTED FROM THAT PREMISES. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VI MAL CHAND GOLECHA, 201 ITR 442 HAS HELD THAT LAND AND BUILDIN G ARE TWO SEPARATE ASSETS. IF THE LAND AND BUILDING HAVE BEEN SOLD TOGETHER THEN SALE IS TO BE BIFURCATED AMONGST LAND AND BUIL DING. THIS IS NECESSARY AS THE CAPITAL GAIN ON LAND IS LONG TERM WHILE CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF BUILDING IS SHORT TERM. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE OLD BUILDING HAS BEEN DEMO LISHED. THUS THE BUILDING WHICH WAS EARLIER A CAPITAL ASSETS WIT H THE ASSESSEE STANDS DEMOLISHED AND THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE AN Y IMPROVEMENT TO THAT BUILDING. IT IS THEREFORE, HELD THAT COST O F THE BUILDING IN RESPECT OF SHOPS SOLD IS TO BE TAKEN AS COST OF ACQ UISITION OF BUILDING AND CAPITAL GAIN ON BUILDING WILL BE DETER MINED ON THE BASIS OF SALE OF BUILDING INCLUDED IN THE SALE OF S HOP. WE THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF SHOPS DURING THE YEAR WILL BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF LAND AND BUILDING. THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND WILL BE LONG TERM. THE PROFIT ON SALE OF BUILDING WILL BE SHORT TERM BECAU SE THE BUILDING WAS STARTED FOR CONSTRUCTION FROM JUNE, 2005 AND TH EREFORE, THE ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 4 PERIOD OF HOLDING OF BUILDING WILL BE LESS THAN THR EE YEARS FOR SALES MADE DURING THE YEAR. LD. AO WHILE BIFURCATING THE LTCG AND STCG AS DIREC TED BY BENCH DIRECTIONS COMMITTED VARIOUS ERRORS WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE SPECIFIC FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DIRECTIONS PRO PERLY. THOUGH THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F, AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT WAS RIGH TLY ALLOWED BY THE LD. A.O., LD. CIT(A) HAS ENHANCED THE ASSESSMENT BY APP LYING A NEW METHODOLOGY OF BIFURCATING THE CAPITAL GAINS INTO L ONG TERM AND SHORT TERM. 2.2 AGGRIEVED THEREON, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US. 2.3 APROPOS FIRST GROUND LD. COUNSEL OBJECTED METHO DOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE LD. AO AND LD. CIT(A) IN APPORTIONING THE PROCE EDS OF LAND AND BUILDING INTO LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN S. BESIDES THE UNJUSTIFIED ENHANCEMENT BY LD. CIT(A) BY IGNORING T HE EFFECT GIVEN BY AO TO RATES OF STAMP DUTY ON SHOPS FOR COMPUTING LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.06.2011 ISSUED FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 5 1. APPORTION THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE APPELLA NT IN LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM [I.E. CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF L AND TO BE CONSIDERED AS LONG TERM AND CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF BUILDING TO BE CONSIDERED AS SHORT TERM]. 2. COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED SHOULD BE TREATED AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LAND C OST FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ACCORDINGLY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE BY FILING THE CHART ISSUED BY SUB-REGISTRAR COMPLIED WITH SPE CIFIC REQUIREMENT OF LD. CIT(A) FOR BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION ADOPTE D BY THE SUB REGISTRAR IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY SOLD. LD. CIT(A) ENDORSES TH E COMPLIANCE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AT PAGE 8 OF HIS ORDER: . SINCE, THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR DEALS W ITH THE ISSUE OF PROPERTY RATES, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE BASIS OF VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR. TH E REPORT OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, AS APPROVED BY THE DIG [REGISTRA TION AND STAMPS] ON 03.08.2006, REGARDING DETERMINATION OF T HE MARKET RATE OF THE BUILDING WAS FURNISHED BY THE AP PELLANT ON 16.01.2014. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT FLOOR-WISE DLV RATE S REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR WITH FOLLOWING ENGLISH VERSION OF THE RELEVANT PORTION:- ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 6 1. GROUND FLOOR (COMMERCIAL): A. VALUE OF LAND : 80% OF THE TOTAL DLC RATE I.E. 3718 = 2975/- PER SQ FT B. COST OF CONSTRUCTION : 400/- PER SQ FT C. COMMON : 33/- PER SQ FT FACILITY VALUE _____________________________________ GROUND FLOOR RATE : 3410/- PER SQ FT (ROUNDED OFF) 2. FIRST FLOOR (SEMI-COMMERCIAL) A. VALUE OF LAND : 70% OF THE TOTAL DLC RATE I.E. 2479 = 1735/- PER SQ FT B. COST OF CONSTRUCTION : 400/- PER SQ FT C. COMMON : 33/- PER SQ FT FACILITY VALUE _________________________________________ FIRST FLOOR RATE : 2170/- PER SQ FT (ROUNDED OFF) 3. SECOND FLOOR (SEMI-COMMERCIAL) A. VALUE OF LAND : 60% OF THE TOTAL DLC RATE I.E. 2479 = 1487/- PER SQ FT B. COST OF CONSTRUCTION : 400/- PER SQ FT C. COMMON : 33/- PER SQ FT FACILITY VALUE _________________________________________ SECOND FLOOR RATE : 1920/- PER SQ FT (ROUNDED OFF) 4. THIRD FLOOR (SEMI-COMMERCIAL) A. VALUE OF LAND : 50% OF THE TOTAL DLC RATE I.E. 2479 = 1240/- PER SQ FT B. COST OF CONSTRUCTION : 400/- PER SQ FT C. COMMON : 33/- PER SQ FT FACILITY VALUE _________________________________________ FIRST FLOOR RATE : 1675/- PER SQ FT (ROUNDED OFF) COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SQUARE FT. : AS PER DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR = 400 RS. PER SQ. FT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS LD. AO (IN REMAN D REPORT) TOTALLY IGNORED THE REPORT OF SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE WHO IS THE COMPETENT ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 7 STATUTORY AUTHORITY ON DLC RATES. THE ADOPTED COMPL ETELY DIFFERENT / STRANGE STATISTICS IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE REPORT OF SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE FOR FLOORWISE BIFURCATION RATES FOR VALUE ATTRIBUTA BLE TO LAND AND TO BUILDING. FOR SIMPLE WORKING OF BIFURCATION AND COM PUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON LAND AND CONSTRUCTION, FOLLOWING STEPS ARE REQUIRED:- S.NO. PARTICULARS OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) AND LD. AO WHETHER FIGURES AVAILABLE ON RECORD 1 SALE VALUE OF LAND HAS APPLIED VARIOUS STATISTICS SALE VALUE GIVEN BY SUB REGISTRAR IN HIS REPORT 2 INDEXED COST OF LAND COST OF LAND AS DECLARED BY APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED BY LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS LD. AO NO DISPUTE, AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IS TAKEN 3 = 1 2 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND 4 SALE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION HAS APPLIED VARIOUS STATISTICS SALE VALUE GIVEN BY SUB REGISTRAR IN HIS REPORT 5 COST OF CONSTRUCTION COST AS DECLARED BY APPELLAN T IS ACCEPTED BY LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS LD. AO NO DISPUTE, AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IS TAKEN 6 = 4 5 SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF CONSTRUCTION ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 8 THE RELEVANT DLC RATES AND ITS BIFURCATION ON THE B ASIS OF VALUE DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND THE FLOOR-WISE CHART OF THE AREA SOLD DURING THE YEAR IS TABULATED AS UNDER:- FLOOR FLAT NO. AREA (SQ. FT.) BUYER NAME SALE DATE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER DLC RATE FLOORWISE AREA OF BUILDING (SQ. FT) G-1 199.00 VIMAL CHHAGED 5.11.2006 6,90,000 6,78,590 G-2 192.05 PREETI JAIN 27.12.2006 6,62,572 6,54,891 G-3 192.05 AMIT SETHI 2.1.2007 6,62,572 6,54,891 GROUND G-11 188.79 NIRMALA JAIN 21.2.2007 7,17,500 7,08,15 1 771.89 101 385.00 P.K. BAJAJ 19.12.2006 8,47,000 8,35,450 102 385.00 P.K. BAJAJ 6.9.2006 8,47,000 8,35,450 103 631.12 H.P. AGARWAL 11.11.2006 13,70,000 13,69, 530 104 845.04 N.K. JAIN 24.08.2006 17,95,663 18,33,737 FIRST 105 883.39 N.K. JAIN 24.08.2006 19,43,458 19,16,956 3129.55 201 385.00 SARITA AGARWAL 17.8.2006 7,39,200 7,39,2 00 202 545.01 PANKAJ JAIN 6.10.2006 10,62,687 10,46,41 9 203 649.25 PANKAJ JAIN 6.10.2006 12,65,939 12,46,56 0 204 574.76 PANKAJ JAIN 6.10.2006 11,20,695 11,03,53 9 SECOND 205 187.50 V.K GOYAL 19.12.2006 3,65,625 3,60,000 2341.52 6242.96 1,40,89,911 1,39,83,364 6224.96 THE DLC RATE FOR SALE OF LAND AND FOR SALE OF CONST RUCTION PRESCRIBED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR FLOOR WISE IS AS UNDER:-: ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 9 S.NO. FLOOR SALE VALUE OF LAND AS DETERMINED BY SUB REGISTRAR SALE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION AS DETERMINED BY SUB REGISTRAR 1. GROUND FLOOR 2975 433 OR ROUND OFF AS 435 2. FIRST FLOOR 1735 433 OR ROUND OFF AS 435 3. SECOND FLOOR 1487 433 4. THIRD FLOOR & ABOVE 1240 433 THE RELEVANT DETAILS REQUIRED FROM THE AFORESAID TW O TABLES ARE TAKEN AS BASIS TO BIFURCATE THE TOTAL SALE PRICE INTO SALE P RICE TOWARDS LAND AND SALE PRICE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF SHOPS HEREIN BELOW AN D ALL THE NUMERICAL AS MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID TABLE IS NOT IN DISPUTE EITHER BY THE LD. CIT(A) OR BY THE LD. AO AS THE AFORESAID TABLE EITHER MENT IONS THE FLOOR, FLAT NO., SQ. FT. AREA, NAME OF BUYER, DATE OF SALE, ACTUAL S ALE CONSIDERATION OR DLC VALUE AND THE VALUE OF LAND SOLD AS WELL AS VALUE O F CONSTRUCTION SOLD AS PER SUB REGISTRARS REPORT SO WORKED OUT ARE IN PAR ITY AND DULY RECONCILED WITH THE DLC VALUE MENTIONED ON THE SALE DEEDS SUBM ITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE LISTED H EREIN BELOW:- AS PER SUB-REGISTRAR VALUE OF LAND AS PER SUB- REGISTRAR VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER SUB-REGISTRAR FLOOR DLC VALUE SALE PRICE OF DLC VALUE SALE PRICE TO WARDS TOTAL VALUE AS PER DLC AND SALE ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 10 SQ. FT. AREA LAND FOR COMPUTING LTCG SQ. FT. AREA CONSTRUCTION FOR COMPUTING STCG DEED GROUND FLOOR 2975 199 5,92,025.00 435 199 86,565.00 6,78,590.00 GROUND FLOOR 2975 192.05 5,71,348.75 435 192.05 83,541.75 6,54,890.50 GROUND FLOOR 2975 192.05 5,71,348.75 435 192.05 83,541.75 6,54,890.50 GROUND FLOOR 2975 188.79 5,61,650.25 435 188.79 82,123.65 6,43,773.90 FIRST FLOOR 1735 385.00 6,67,975.00 435 385.00 1,67,475.00 8,35,450.00 FIRST FLOOR 1735 385.00 6,67,975.00 435 385.00 1,67,475.00 8,35,450.00 FIRST FLOOR 1735 631.12 10,94,993.20 435 631.12 2,74,537.20 13,69,530.40 FIRST FLOOR 1735 845.04 14,66,144.40 435 845.04 3,67,592.40 18,33,736.80 FIRST FLOOR 1735 883.39 15,32,681.65 435 883.39 3,84,274.65 19,16,956.30 SECOND FLOOR 1487 385.00 5,72,495.00 435 385.00 1,66,705.00 7,39,200.00 SECOND FLOOR 1487 545.01 8,10,429.87 433 545.01 2,35,989.33 10,46,419.20 SECOND FLOOR 1487 649.25 9,65,434.75 433 649.25 2,81,125.25 12,46,560.00 SECOND FLOOR 1487 574.76 8,54,668.12 433 574.76 2,48,871.08 11,03,539.20 SECOND FLOOR 1487 187.50 2,78,812.50 433 187.50 81,187.50 3,60,000.00 1,12,07,982.24 27,11,004.56 1,39,18,986.80 A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE TABLE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT TH E BIFURCATION OF THE DLC VALUE INTO VALUE OF LAND AND VALUE OF CONSTRUCT ION AS PER THE REPORT OF THE SUB REGISTRAR IS IN PARITY WITH THE DLC VALU E MENTIONED ON THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR AND FU RTHER THERE REMAINS NO AMBIGUITY TO WORK OUT THE SALE VALUE OF LAND AND CO NSTRUCTION AS THE SUB REGISTRAR BEING THE MOST COMPETENT AUTHORITY HAS DO NE SO. ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 11 2.4 COMING TO THE COST OF LAND, INDEXED COST OF LAN D AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE EITHER BY THE LD. CIT(A) OR BY THE LD. AO AND HENCE THE CORRECT LTCG AND STCG WORKING SHOULD BE AS UNDER:- TOTAL SALE VALUE OF LAND AS PER SUB REGISTRAR : RS. 1,12,07,982.24 TOTAL INDEXED COST OF LAND [{10,73,065 6,242.96 SQ. FT. / 11,753.74 SQ. FT.} 519 / 426] : RS. 6,94,382.00 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN : RS. 1,05,13,600.24 TOTAL SALE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER SUB REGISTR AR : RS. 27,11,004.56 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION [80,50,070.75 6,242.96 SQ. FT. / 11,753.74 SQ. FT .] : RS. 42,75,768.36 SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS : RS. (-) 15,64,763.80 THUS THE BIFURCATION OF LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM AS DONE ABOVE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED PARTICULARLY WHEN THE COST AS CLAIME D IS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE LD. AO AND THE SALE VALUE HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REPORT OF THE SUB REGISTRAR WHO IS THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE CONCERNED FLOORWISE DLC RATES WHICH ARE ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 12 MADE SUBJECT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE A CT AND NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE IS CONTEMPLATED BY LAW. IT IS PERTINEN T TO MENTION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF IN AS MUCH AS ON ON E HAND ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE VALUE DETERMINED BY SUB REG ISTRAR AND ON THE OTHER HAND, VALUE DETERMINED BY SUB-REGISTRAR HAS B EEN UNJUSTIFIABLY SUBSTITUTED BY LD. CIT(A)S OWN STATISTICS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THUS LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE DLC RATES PROVIDED BY SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE WHO IS RECOGNIZED AS AN APPROPRIATE AUTHORIT Y TO DETERMINE RATES BY I T ACT ITSELF. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UNJUSTIFIAB LE REJECTING THE SAME AND SUBSTITUTING HIS OWN STATISTICS. WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE OF SALE AND DLC RATE VALUE OF RS. 1,70,923/-, THE SAME BEING A TTRIBUTABLE TO THE LAND IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH HAS BEEN MISTAKENLY HELD AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2.5 LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF PR OCEEDINGS AS ITAT JAIPUR ORDER DATED 24.06.2011 DECIDED THE MAIN ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF LTCG & STCG IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH TERMS, THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE LD. AO. ASSESSEE WAS PRODUCED THE FLOOR WISE DLC RATES FROM SUB REGISTRAR ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 13 OFFICE, WHICH ARE ACCEPTED BY AO. UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, SUB REGISTRAR IS THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE FLOORWISE DLC RATES. IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF A O TO ENHANCE THE VALUES ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF DLC RATES. THE ALLOCABLE CO ST WORKED OUT FOR RESPECTIVE LTCG AND STCG HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE L D. CIT(A) AS WELL. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ENHANCING THE LTCG AND STCG AS COMP UTED BY THE AO WHICH WAS BASED ON DLC VALUATION. BESIDES THERE APP EARS NO JUSTIFICATION IN DISTURBING THE AOS IN THIS BEHALF AND THE SPECI FIC DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY FOLLOWED. THUS THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A) IN THIS BEHALF CANNOT BE UPHELD. WHEN THE LAW PRESCRIB ES THE SUB REGISTRAR AS PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR DETERMINATION FLOOR-WIS E DLC RATES U/S 50C WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION IN INTERFERING WITH THE SAM E. 2.7 APROPOS THE REMAINING DIFFERENCE OF SALE AND DL C RATE VALUE OF RS. 1,70,923/-, THE SAME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LAN D VALUATION, THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN AND NOT AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2.8 CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 214/JP/2014 SHRI RAVI SACHETI VS. ITO, WARD- 2(1), ,JAIPUR 14 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 /03/2016 . SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 /03/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAVI SACHETI, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2 (1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.214/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR