Sri Rajumar Kumbhat (Deceased), CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2283/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8423 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V JAGADISAN C A SHRI SUPRI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Gift; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.2283/MDS/ 2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 RAJKUMAR KUMBHAT (DECEASED) BY L.R. MR. AKASH KUMBHAT, NEW NO.31, OLD NO.12- 15/27, DR. GURUSWAMY ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI 600 031. [PAN AABPK 2663A] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD XV(4) CHENNAI ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. V. JAGADISAN, C.A. $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SUPRIYA PAL, JCIT. & ' '( /DATE OF HEARING : 19-09-2016 )* ' '( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-09-2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 31.10.2013 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 2 -: CHENNAI, DATED 31.10.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- L. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF OBJECTION AGAINST VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY U/S 50C AS WELL A S OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HON'B LE CIT (A). 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN H OLDING THAT THE DVO CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF LITIGATION INV OLVED IN THE PROPERTY WHILE FIXING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WITHOUT PROPER REGARD TO THE DECISION ON THE SUBJECT FURNISHED BY THE APP ELLANT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN H OLDING THAT THE DVO HAS CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 50- C (2) IN FIXING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES S OLD. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN H OLDING THAT THE DVO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING CPWD RATE AS AGAINST STATE PWD RATE WHICH IS APPLICABLE EVEN TO PROPERTI ES IN CHENNAI, THUS DISREGARDING PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY COURTS OF LAW. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT PR OPERLY CONSIDERED THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY SOLD SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTUAL CIRCUMS TANCE RELATED TO FORCED SALE AFTER LITIGATION OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS AND THE DIFFICULT POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE TO FIGHT THE BAT TLE AGAINST ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 3 -: EARLIER ILLEGAL SALE OF THE SAME PROPERTY BY THE IL LEGAL VENDOR TO THE SAME PURCHASER - THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO ACCEPT THE NORMAL FAIR MARKET V ALUE SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED U/S 50 C WHERE THE SALE IN QUESTION IS A DISTRESS SALE. 6. IN ANY EVENT, REASONSINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) FOR CONFIRMING THE METHOD ADOPTED BY DVO IN DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QU ESTION IS NOT LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT. 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.35,000/- PER GROUND - BASED ON GUIDELINE VALUE , THE DETAIL S OF SUCH VALUE NOT BEING FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TI ME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN REJEC TING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.81 ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SEE/ APPELLANT . 8. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAVING ACC EPTED THAT THE FMV FIXED BY DVO IS TO BE REDUCED BY RS.6,33,450/-- ERRED IN REDUCING ONLY 2,11,150/- (1/3 RD SHARE) ON GROSS FMV - THE CORRECT WORKING IS 1/3 OF 3,66,18,000/ - = 1,22,06,000/- LESS 1/3 OF 6,33,4501- = 2,11,150/- - NETT VALUE 1,19,94,8501- AND NOT RS.1,21,35,616/-. 9. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 4 -: DISREGARDING THE CLAIM THAT SET OFF SHOULD BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF 24,91 ,667/- BEING SALE CONSIDERATION ALREADY RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SAME PROPERTY BY THE ILLEGAL OWNER TO THE SAME PURCHASER WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FR OM THE APPELLANT. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS TWO SIBLINGS HAD INHERITED AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY COMPR ISING OF LAND AND BUILDING AT OLD SURVEY NO.1951, NEW SURVEY NO.1419/ 7F, C.C. NO.3807, BLOCK NO.28, MYLAPORE VILLAGE, MYLAPORE TR IPLICANE TALUK. THE AREA OF THE PLOT CAME TO 3731 SQ.FT. THE PROPE RTY WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SIBLINGS ON THE DEATH OF THEIR MOTHER SMT. RATANKUMARI KUMBHAT. SMT. RATANKUMARI KUMBHAT HAD PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN 1963 THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEE D. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE ABOVE PROPERTY TO ONE SM T. J. GEETHA ON 12.10.2007 AND THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED WAS C1,50,00,000/-. ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT T HE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE PLACED A VALUE OF C10,500/- PER SQ.FT FOR T HE LAND AND FIXED A VALUE OF C1,50,000/- FOR THE BUILDING. THE BUYER O F THE LAND HAD PAID ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY AS WELL. BASED ON THE LAND V ALUE TAKEN AT ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 5 -: C10,500/- PER. SQ.FT FOR 3731 SQ.FT OF LAND SOLD B Y THE ASSESSEE, VALUE CAME TO C3,91,75,500/-. ALONGWITH VALUE OF THE BUI LDING, THE TOTAL VALUE FIXED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE CAME TO C3, 93,25,500/- AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER B EING 1/3 RD , CAME TO C1,31,08,500/-. AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THE SALE CONSIDERATION PAID BY ASSESSEES MOTHER IN 1963 W HILE ACQUIRING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ONLY C15,000/-. HE CONSIDERED THE BASE BASE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE POPERY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT C35,000/- PER GROUND, WHICH EFFECTIVELY WORKED OUT TO C14.50 PER SQ.FT. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS REWORKED TAKING THE CONSIDE RATION AS C1,31,08,500/- AND THE COST AT C99,356/- 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). ONE OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FOLLOWED PROCEDURE SET OUT IN SEC. 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AC T). AFTER CONSIDERING THIS OBJECTION, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE VALUATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORD INGLY, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE DISTRICT VALUATIO N OFFICER. THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER CALLED FOR THE OBJECTIONS FROM TH E ASSESSEE WHICH ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 6 -: ASSESSEE DULY FURNISHED VIDE ITS LETTERS DATED 26. 09.2012, 17.10.2012 AND 22.10.2012. AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS O F THE ASSESSEE, THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET VA LUE AT C3,66,18,000/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FORWARDED VALUATION REPOR T TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. THEREAFTER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) REQUIRED ASSESSEE TO FILE ITS OBJECTION IN THE LIGH T OF THE VALUATION REPORT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS EARLIER SOL D BY ONE SHRI. H. MAHENDRA KUMAR AND THREE OTHERS WHO WERE TENANTS T HEREIN THROUGH A SALE DEED DATED 27.05.2002 IN FAVOUR OF THE VERY SAME BUYER SMT. J. GEETHA FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF C74,75,000/-. A S PER ASSESSEE, SALE EFFECTED BY THESE PERSONS WHO HAD NO AUTHORITY OR TITLE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ASSAILED BY THE ASSESSEES THROUGH A S UIT FILED BEFORE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. HOWEVER, AS PER ASSESSEE SUCH SUIT WAS COMPROMISED BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT. PURSUANT TO SUCH COMPROMISE, ASSESSEE HAD SOLD SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SMT. J. GEETH A ALONGWITH OTHER WITH HIS SIBLINGS FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF C1,5 0,00,000/-. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE VALUE AS PE R SEC. 50C OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ADOPTED SINCE IT WAS A DISTRESS S ALE. AS PER ASSESSEE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS OCCUPIED EARLIER BY THE TENANT WHO HAD ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 7 -: UNAUTHORIZELY SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SMT.J. GEETHA AN D AFTER SUCH FRAUDULENT SALE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT MUCH LOWER A PRICE THAN THE MARKET VALUE DUE TO THE PAR TICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TO AVOID PROLONGED LITIGATION. IN S O FAR AS VALUATION MADE BY THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER WAS CONCERNE D THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER IGNORED ITS OBJECTIONS AND CONSIDERED THE BUILDING AREA WRONGLY AS 2299 SQ.FT AGAINST THE ACTUALLY SOLD AREA OF 600 SQ.FT. AS PER ASSESSEE AR EA OF THE BUILDING WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AS 600 SQ.FT . ONE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER HAD A DOPTED CPWD RATES FOR VALUATION OF THE BUILDING AS AGAINST PWD RATES. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MIL INDUSTRIES LTD (2013) 142 ITD 428 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT IN A DISTRESS SALE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS PER SEC.50C OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ADOPTED. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHANDRA NARAIN CHAUDHRI (2014) 99 DTR 105. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY DVO IN THE AREA OF THE BUILDING SOLD. AS PER LD. ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 8 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW WHY PWD RATES WAS TO BE ADOPTED FOR VALUING THE BUILD ING. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THA T SEC. 50C OF THE ACT DID NOT ALLOW ANY RELIEF FOR THE TYPE SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLEGED DISTRESS SITUATION AS CANVASSED BY THE ASS ESSEE. NEVERTHELESS FOR THE MISTAKE IN TAKING 2299 SQ.FT AGAINST 600 S Q.FT OF BUILDING SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE A RELIEF OF C2,11,150/- WAS GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE. AS FOR THE DECISION OF ALLHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA NARAIN CHOWDRI (SUPRA ) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOT ED THAT THERE WAS NO VALUATION BY THE DISTRICT VALUATI ON OFFICER IN THE SAID CASE AND THUS THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT. 7. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE S TRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT SALE EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER PECULIAR CIRCUMS TANCES. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THE TENANTS HAD SOLD THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CLAIMING IT TO BE THEIRS AND HAD REGISTERED A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE VERY SAME BUYER ON 27.05.2002. THE LD. AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE AND HIS SIBLINGS CAME TO K NOW OF THE FRAUDULENT SALE BY THE TENANTS ONLY ON A LATER DATE. CONTEN TION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THEY HAD MOV ED THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FOR NULLIFYING SUCH SALE . NEVERTHELESS, AS PER ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 9 -: LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE CONSIDERING LONG TIME PERIOD INVOLVED IN CIVIL LITIGATION HAD OPTED FOR AN OUT- OF-COURT RESOLUTION WITH THE ULTIMATE BUYER. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE PURSUANT TO SUCH OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT, ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED THE SALE DEED ON 12.10.2007 IN FAVOUR OF THE VERY SAME BUYER. AS PE R LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THE SUM OF C1,50,00,000/- RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND SIBLINGS ON EXECUTION OF SUCH SALE DEED WAS NOT COMPARABLE TO A NORMAL SALE. HENCE, ACCORDING TO HIM SEC. 50C OF T HE ACT COULD NOT APPLIED AT ALL. 8. SO FAR AS MERITS OF THE CASE WAS CONCERNED, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT DISTRICT VALUATION OF FICER HAD TOOK LAND RATE AT C10,500/- PER SQ.FT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE BA SED ON RATES FURNISHED BY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. AS AGAINST THIS , AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, GUIDELINE RATE CAME TO C 5,556/- PER SQ.FT ONLY AT ANNA SALAI. FURTHER AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IF THE BUILDING WAS VALUED AS PER STATE PWD RATES, ITS VA LUATION WOULD GO DOWN BY 25%. IN ANY CASE AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE REBATE FOR DIFFERENCE DUE TO ADOPTION OF LARGER ARE A OF BUILDING WAS NOT CORRECTLY GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A). LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ABATEMENT HAD TO BE GIVEN FO R THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE TENANT WHO HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY. ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 10 -: 9. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IN A DISTRESS SAL E, VALUATION U/S.50C OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ADOPTED, RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON JUDGMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DINESH KUMAR MITTAL VS. ITO & ORS 193 ITR 0770, CIT VS. SMT.RAJAKUMARI VIMALA DEVI 279 ITR 360 AND DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. K.S.R. ANIRUDHRA (ITA NO.396/MDS/2013, DATED 07.03. 2014). FOR ADOPTION OF PWD RATES FOR VALUING THE BUILDING, LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF R AJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. PREM KUMAR MURDIA 296 ITR 508, CIT VS. DINESH TALWAR 265 ITR 344 AND HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL 257 ITR (TRIB) 65 THAT OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. RAJITHA (ITA NO.1642/MDS/2011, DATED 26.03.2012). 10. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VA LUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY AN Y AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 11 -: REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSES SED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, B E 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 ASSESSED OR ASSESS ABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY 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 ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER S UB- SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTH ORITY, 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 REF ERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS 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-SECTIO N (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECE SSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THA T ACT. (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) E XCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATIO N AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKE N AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACC RUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 12 -: READING OF THE ABOVE SECTION WOULD SHOW THAT ASSE SSEE HAD AN OPTION BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR SEEKING A REFERENCE TO A VALUATION OFFICER FOR VALUING THE CAPITAL ASSET WHI CH WAS TRANSFERRED. ASSESSEE HERE HAD EXERCISED THIS OPTION BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) THROUGH LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE SUCH REFEREN CE AND GOT CAPITAL ASSET VALUED. 12. COMING TO THE PROCEDURE WHICH IS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER THERE ARE CLEARLY SET OUT IN SUB -SEC (2) OF SEC. 50C. THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVE THAT VALUATI ON OFFICER HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE ABOVE PROCEDURE. ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN O PPORTUNITY BY THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR PRESENTING ITS CASE. THE EA RLIER EPISODE OF TENANT ATTEMPTING THE SALE OF THE SUBJECTED PROPERTY AND SUBSEQUENT COMPROMISE WITH THE ULTIMATE BUYER WERE ALL CANVAS SED BEFORE THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E ON A QUESTION FROM THE BENCH ADMITTED THAT DVO HAD INDEED CONSIDERED T HESE AND GIVEN REBATE IN VALUING THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO HIM THE REBATE WAS INSUFFICIENT. IN OUR OPINION ONCE THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN SUB- SEC.(2) OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT IS FOLLOWED BY THE V ALUATION OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT ADOPT SUCH VALUE AS FIXED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. BY VIRTUE OF SUB-SEC (3) OF SEC. 50C OF THE ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 13 -: ACT, AN ASSESSING OFFICER CAN EXAMINE SUCH VALUE O NLY IF IT WAS MORE THAN THE VALUATION GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY BY THE STA MP VALUATION AUTHORITY. COMING TO THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT STATE PWD RATES AND NOT CPWD RATES ARE TO BE ADOPTED, THE CA SES CITED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARE ALL RELATING TO A SSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS FOR UNDER STATEMENT OF CONS TRUCTION COST AND NOT WHERE SEC. 50C OF THE ACT WAS INVOKED. AS FOR THE CASES RELIED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR CANVASSING FO R HIS CONTENTION THAT FOR DISTRESS THAT SEC. 50C OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ADOPTED, FACT SITUATION IN EACH OF THESE CASES WERE ENTIRELY DIFF ERENT. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DINESH KUMAR MITTAL (SUPRA) WAS ON AN ISSUE RELATING TO AN ADDITION BY SUBSTITUTING TRUE SALE CONSIDERATION WITH VALUE FIXED BY REGISTRATION AUT HORITIES IN AN YEAR PRIOR TO SEC. 50C BEING INTRODUCED IN THE ACT. AS FOR THE CASE OF SMT. RAJKUMARI VIMLA DEVI (SUPRA ) THEIR LORDSHIP WAS CONSIDERING AN ISSUE OF DEEMED GIFT U/S.4(1)(A) OF THE GIFT TAX ACT. COM ING TO THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI. K.S.R. ANIRUDHA, (SUPRA ) THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER ABSENCE OF ACCESS ROA D IF NOT CONSIDERED BY DVO IN HIS VALUATION, COULD MATERNALL Y AFFECT SUCH VALUATION. AS FOR THE DECISION OF MIL INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) THE VALUE WAS REFIXED FOR A REASON THAT VARIABLES INVOLVED IN DVO ESTIMATION WERE CHANGING FROM TIME TO TIME. HOWEVER, PARAS OF 14 & 15 OF SAID ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 14 -: DECISION WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, IN OUR OPIN ION SWINGS THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE ONLY. 14. BUT, THE ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN CARRIED AWAY BY CERTAIN SITUATIONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A DISTRESS SALE AND THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID TO THE UCO BANK AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS COMPARABLE TO THE EARLIER VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN BY THE UCO BANK AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS NO CHANCE TO EXPECT MORE PRICE FOR THE PROPERTY. IT MEANS THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH MADE THE ASSESSEE TO SELL THE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 2,22,64,409/- 15. IN OUR VIEW, THESE FACTORS, HOWEVER HEARTENING MAY BE, CANNOT BE ACTED UPON BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES FOR THE REASON THAT SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PROVISION. ANY RELIEF GRANTED TO AN ASSESSEE MUST BE ON THE BASIS OF REASONS. THE REASONS MUST BE WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF LAW. WHATEVER MAY BE THE PROBLEMS SUFFERED B/ AN ASSESSEE, IN REALITY THOSE REASONS CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 50C. WHEN SECTION 50C SAYS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHALL BE THE GUIDELINE VALUE, IF THE STATED CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN THAT, IT MEANS TH AT LAW HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE COURSE OF ACTION. NOTHING CAN PERSUADE THE SITUATION INCLUDING THE GENUINE AND VALID DIFFICULTIES OF AN ASSESSEE. 13. NOW COMING TO THE ARGUMENT THAT VALUE OF LAND WAS FIXED BY THE LD. DVO WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT DVO HAD CONSIDERED THE RATES FURNISHED BY THE SUB-REGIS TRAR OFFICE. SO FAR AS BUILDUP AREA SOLD BEING LESS THAN THAT WHAT IT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DVO, WE FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) HAS INDEED GIVEN RELIEF FOR THIS. COMING TO THE QUE STION OF ABATEMENT FOR AMOUNT RECEIVED BY EARLIER TENANT AS PER EARLIE R SALE DEED, IN OUR ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 :- 15 -: OPINION THIS CANNOT BE IN ANYWAY CONSIDERED FOR ANY RELIEF TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THA T NO PURCHASER OF A PROPERTY CAN ACQUIRE A TITLE BETTER THAN THAT OF TH E SELLER. IN ASSESSEES CASE, ALTHOUGH HAD FILED A SUIT AGAINST THE TENANT S WHO HAD EARLIER SOLD THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ASSESSEES ASSERTION ALL ALONG WAS THAT THEY HAD NO TITLE IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2283/MDS/2013 STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 23 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( + + ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) ! '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . $%$& ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ' '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ,& / CHENNAI - / DATED:23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016 KV .+'+$'/0+10' / COPY TO: + 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. + 2'+34 / CIT(A) 5. 056+$'7 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. + 2' / CIT 6. 68+9& / GF