Dilip Shantilal Jain, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax,

ITA 2797/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8535 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISH C GROVER
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Depreciation; Salary income; Fair market value; Valuation report; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 201; 64; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO . 2797 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 1 3 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN ROW HOUSE NO.6, KOHINOOR ESTATES, MULA ROAD, KHADKI, PUNE 411003 PAN : A BOPJ0510F ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI SATISH C. GROVER / DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 - 0 1 - 20 20 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 - 01 - 2020 / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI , A M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1 2 , PUNE , DATED 06 .0 9 .201 6 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 2 - 1 3 . 2 ITA NO.2797/PUN/2016 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER : - THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 ON 29.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.21,12,060/ - . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETU RN OF INCOME ON 01.10.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,61,85,670/ - . THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND T HEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 09.03.2015 AND T HE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,47,30,106/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER , ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER D ATED 06.09.2016 (IN APPEAL NO. PN/CIT(A) - 12/53/2015 - 16 ) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED ORIGINAL GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN LATER AMENDED . THE AMENDED GROUND READ AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW: 1 . THE HON CIT(A) ERRED IN DIREC TING THE AO TO ADOPT VALUE OF RS.1,84,93,000/ - AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN PLACE OF RS.1,65,00,000/ - AS PER SALE DEED WHICH IS THE MARKET VALUE FOR TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSEES RIGHTS IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE APPELLANT PLEADS FOR DIRECTIONS TO ACCEPT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,65,00,000/ - ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD RIGHTS IN LAND ALONG WITH SHED THEREON AT C.S.NO.2099, WESTERN HIGHWAY, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI TO M/S. MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT. LTD. FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,65,00,000/ - . IT 3 ITA NO.2797/PUN/2016 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE VALU E ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.2,54,87,000/ - , BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.1,65,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE, ASKED AS TO WHY PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 50C OF THE ACT NOT BE INVOKED, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER, BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PRO PERTY AT RS.2,54,87,000/ - AND ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER: 3.2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CA SE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT CS NO.2099, WESTERN HIGHWAY, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI CONSIS TING OF LAND ADMEASURING 232.2 SQ.MT. AND SHED / SHOP WITH BUILT - UP AREA OF 65. 03 SQ.MT. THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE ABOVE PROPERTY VIDE CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 14.09.1994. THE PROPERTY WAS LATER ON LET OUT TO M/S MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT . LTD . , THE PURCHASER, WHO WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF SALE. THE LAND ALONG WITH SHED WAS TRANSFERRED TO M/S MILLENIUM MARBL ES PVT . LTD VIDE SATE DEED DATE 19.11.2011 FOR AN AGREED CONSIDERATION OF RS . 1,65,00,000. DURING THE PERIOD OF TENANCY OF THE PURCHASER, PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA FOR WIDENING OF NATIONAL EXPRESS HIGHWAY AND THE APPELLANT'S NAME IN THE OWNERSHIP CARD WAS DELETED VIDE ENTRY DATED 14.05.2009. HOWEVER NEITHER ANY COMPENSATION WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT NOR POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVT . OF MAHARASHTRA. APPELLANT LATER WAS ALLOWED TO TRANSFER THE ABOVE PROPERTY TO THE TENANT M/S MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT . LTD AND SALE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AS VENDOR AND TENANT BEING THE PURCHASER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS DETERMINED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS . 2,54,87,000. THE AO INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C PROPOSED TO ADOPT SALE CONSIDERATION BEING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IN PLACE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FOR PURPOSE OF WO RKING OUT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. BEFORE THE AO, THE APPELLANT DISPUTED THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND CONTENDED THAT HE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE RECORDS AND WAS ONLY HAVING INCOMPLETE RIGHTS BY WAY OF POSSESSION. THE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED IN SLUM AREA AND THERE WAS RESTRICTION ON CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH BUILDING AS PER ORDERS OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHED CONSTRUCTED ON THE PLOT WAS TEM PORARY IN NATURE AND WAS QUITE OLD. THEREFORE, FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SHED AT RS . 91,77,033 ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS UNREALISTIC. IT WAS PLEADED THAT CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OF RS . 1,65,00,000 WAS THE FAIR, MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THESE CONTENTIONS , AO 4 ITA NO.2797/PUN/2016 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN REFERRED THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DVO VIDE LETTER DATED 09.03.2015 AND ON THE SAME DATE ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED DETERMINING CAPITAL GAIN AFTER A DOPTING SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS . 2,54,87,000. APPELLANT PREFERRED APPEAL ON 20.04.2015 AND THE DVO PASSED ORDER U/S 50C ON 29.07.2016 DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS . 1,84,93,000. 3.3 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, APPELLANT VIDE GROUND 2 CONTENDED THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF LAND AND BUILDING AND HAD ONLY RIGHT OF POSSESSION THEREFORE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE. I DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION AS APPELLANT PURCHASED PROPERTY VIDE CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 14.09.1994 AND HAD FULL RIGHTS IN THE PROPERT Y AS SAME WAS LET OUT BY HIM TO M/S MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT . LTD SINCE 27.02.2007. IT IS A FACT THAT GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA ALTHOUGH NOTIFIED THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AND VIDE ENTRY DATED 14.05.2009, THE APPELLANT'S NAME IN THE LAND RECORD WAS DELETED BUT NEITHER ANY SUM WAS PAID TO THE APPELLANT NOR POSSESSION WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVT. THE APPELLANT CONTINUED TO ENJOY ALL THE RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE RENT RECEIVED FROM TENANT M/S MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT . LTD. ULTIMATELY THE PROPERTY WAS TRA NSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF IN FAVOUR OF TENANT BY WAY OF SALE DEED DATED 19.11.2011 AND THERE WAS NO SIGNATORY FROM THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA IN THE ABOVE SATE DEED. APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMPENSATION FROM THE GOVT. AND FINALLY WAS ABLE TO EX ECUTE THE SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF TENANT ESTABLISHES THAT APPELLANT WAS NEVER DENIED OF ANY RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY AND IN SUBSTANCE, CONTINUED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ALSO SUPPORT THAT HE HAD NOT TRANS FERRED LIMITED RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY BUT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP RIGHTS VESTED WITH THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, PROVISION OF SECTION 50C WOULD APPLY AND GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 3.4 C OMING TO THE DISPUTE REGARDING VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE S TAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OF RS . 2,54,87,000 WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE AO AS SALE CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT ON REFERENCE BY THE AO, THE DVO HAS DETERMINED FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS . 1,84,93,00 0 AND SAME SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO OF RS . 2,54,87,000. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DVO ALSO HAD ADOPTED UNREALISTIC VALUE OF STRUCTURE AT RS . 49,62,358 (AS AGAINST OF RS . 91,71,033 ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) AS THE VALUE OF STRUCTURE WAS NOT MORE THAN RS . 2,10,500. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE VALUATION OF STRUCTURE IS ADOPTED AT RS 2,10,500, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS PER DVO WOULD WORK OUT AT RS . 1,37,41,142 WHICH WAS LOWER THAN ACTUAL SAL E CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OF RS . 1,65,00,000. I FIND CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT PARTLY ACCEPTABLE. THE DVO AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE VALUATION LIKE NALLA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, DIFFICULTY I N EVICTING THE EXISTING TENANT, HEIGH T RESTRICTIONS PLACED BY THE NEARBY AIRPORT, DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS . 1 , 84 , 93 , 000 AND THEREFORE, AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION FOR PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS U/S 50C AT RS . 1,84,93,000 IN PLACE OF RS . 2 , 5 4 , 87 , 000 . HOWEVER, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING UNREALISTIC VALUATION OF STRUCTURE BY THE DVO. SIMILAR OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE DVO WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DVO AND DEALT AT PARA 8. 1 . 2 REPRODUCED BELOW : OBJECTION 8.1.2 I N THE PROPOSED VALUATION YOU HAVE ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE SHED/SHOP AT RS . 69 , 64 , 713 SUBJECT TO DISCOUNT FOR ADVERSE FACTORS. 5 ITA NO.2797/PUN/2016 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN WE SUBMIT THE PROPOSED VALUE IS EXCESSIVE FOR THE KIND OF STRUCTURE THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE BEFORE SALE MORE SO SINCE THE BUYER HAS NOT FOUND ANY VALUE IN THE STRUCTURE AND HAS DEMOLISHED THE SAME. REPLY 8.1.2.1: THE STRUCTURED MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 19.11.2011 HAS ALREADY DEMOLISHED BY THE PURCHASER. THE BUA OF THE SAID STRUCTURE =65.03 SQM AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR VALUATION PURPOSE. THE BUA RATE FOR THE SAID ARRIVED AT VERY FAIRLY BY THIS OFFICE BY TAKING THE AVERAGE BUA RATE OF SHED AND SHOP AS ALREADY MENTIONED IN PARA 4 .2 OF PRELIMINARY VALUATION. THE NECESSARY REDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION IS ALSO GIVEN. THERE IS NO OTHER RELEVANT FACTOR WHICH HAS BEEN LEFT OUT BY THIS OFFICE WHILE ARRIVING AT THE VALUE OF THE SAID STRUCTURE. THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE PURCHASER HAS DEM OLISHED THE STRUCTURE HE FOUND NO VALUE IN THE STRUCTURE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE WE DO NOT DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE. SO FAR AS THE VALUE OF STRUCTURE IS CONCERNED THIS OFFICE HAS NOT LEFT OUT ANY FACTOR WHILE DETERMINING THE SAME. HENCE THE ASSESSEE'S AB OVE OBJECTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.' THEREFORE, APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION FOR REJECTING THE VALUATION DONE BY THE DVO IN RESPECT OF THE SHED BEING UNREALISTIC IS HEREBY REJECTED. 3.5 APPELLANT HAD LASTLY CONTENDED THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SATE CONSIDERATION RECORDED OF RS . 1,65,00,000 AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO OF RS . 1,84,93,000 IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE WAS ONLY 11.2 AND THE AO NEED NOT ADOPT THE VALUATION OF THE DVO IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SECTION 55A(B)(I). I DO NOT FIND ME RIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 55A(B)(I) ONLY PROVIDES THAT AO MAY REFER THE VALUATION TO THE DVO IF IN HIS OPINION FAIR MARKET VALUE OF ASSET EXCEEDS BY MORE THAN 15 % THE VALUE OF ASSET CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS MORE THAN 15 % DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AND THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE AO HAD RIGHTLY REFERRED THE VALUATION TO DVO. THIS PROVISION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED IN THE MANNER CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ONCE VALUATION WAS REFERRED AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND THEREAFTER EVEN IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE DETER M INED BY THE DVO AND THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS LESS 15% SAME IS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS HEREBY REJECTED. 3.6 TO SUM UP, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS . 1,84,93,000 IN PLACE OF RS . 2,54,87,000 ADOPTED BY HIM FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF ASSET UNDER CONSIDERATION. TH E GROUND 1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 ITA NO.2797/PUN/2016 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN 5. BEFORE US T HE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND ALONG WITH SHED AND SHOP STANDING THEREON WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY HIM AT A COST OF RS.4,42,560/ - IN F.Y. 1994 - 95. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE LAND RECORDS, PROPERTY STANDS IN THE NAME OF MAHANAGAR BHUMAPAN AD HIKARI, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE LEGAL OWNER OF LAND AND BUILDING UNDER THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD OFF WAS ALREADY LET OUT TO M/S. MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT. LTD. AND IT WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF MILLENIUM MARBLES. THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS RS.2,54,87,000/ - . BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER REFERRED THE VALUATION TO DVO WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2016 PASSED U/S 50C OF THE ACT DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.1,84,93,000/ - . DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY AN AGREEMENT DATED 19.11.2011 T HE ASSESSEE SOLD OFF HIS RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY TO HIS TENANT M/S. MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT. LTD. FOR AN AGREED CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,65,00,000/ - . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT VALUATION MADE BY THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) IS NOT APPROPRIATE AS HE HAS N OT APPRECIATED THE REALITIES OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE VALUE WORKED OUT IS EXCESSIVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS IN OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY BUT IT WAS NOT THE LEGAL OWNER ON RECORD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STRUCTURE STANDING ON T HE PROPERTY COMPRISED OF SHED AND SHOP MEASURING 65.03 SQ.MTRS. , THE SHOP WAS ABOUT 200 SQ.FT. AND THE REMAINING AREA WAS AN OPEN SHED COVERED BY USING STEEL COLUMNS AND 7 ITA NO.2797/PUN/2016 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN OVERHEAD ASBESTOS AND IT WAS IN EXISTENCE SINCE F.Y. 1994 - 95 AND DID NOT HAVE ANY SIGN IFICANT VALUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY LATER ON DEMOLISHED THE EXISTING SHED AND SHOP AND RE - CONSTRUCTED AFRESH A NEW SHOP FOR HIS OWN USE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE VALUE OF STRUCTURE BY THE DVO BASED ON THE READY RECKO NER VALUE OF 2011 AT RS.69,64,713/ - IS EXCESSIVE AS COMPARED TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.2.10 LAKHS WORKED OUT BY THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IN THE PROPERTY CARD, NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DELE TED, HE POINTED TO THE COPY OF DVO REPORT WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 84 ONWARDS. FROM THAT HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS ALREADY LET OUT TO M/S. MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT. LTD. VIDE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 27.02.2007. HE ALSO POIN TED TO THE FACT THAT THE EXISTING SHED WAS DEMOLISHED BY THE BUYER WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE DVO REPORT WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE ALSO POINTED TO THE REMARK OF THE DVO WHICH STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPER TY AND THE OWNERSHIP OF WHICH RESTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AS PER ENTRY DATED 19.06.2009 IN THE PROPERTY CARD. HE THEREAFTER, POINTED TO THE VALUATION MADE BY DVO AT PAGE 89 AND POINTED TO VARIOUS SHORTCOMINGS. HE THEREAFTER, SUBMITTED THAT T HE DVO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN VALUING THE COST OF SHED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE READY RECKONER VALUE, MORE SO, WHEN THE SHED HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED BY THE BUYER. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BE CONSIDERED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. CONSIDERING THE FACTS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED AT RS.69,64,713/ - IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND THE REASONABLE VALUATION AT AROUND 20 - 25% IF ADOPTED, WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO.2797/PUN/2016 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN 6 . THE L D. D R ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) . 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUATION MADE AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, BUT AS PER REVENUE RECORDS THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND RESTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA . IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND ALONG WITH SHED THEREON TO M/S. MILLENIUM MARBLES PVT. LTD., WH O WAS ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DEMOLISHED BY THE PURCHASER AND THE STRUCTURE WAS STATED TO HA VE BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE THE TIME OF ITS PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GOT VALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER WHO HAD VALUED THE SHED AT RS.2.10 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE DVO AT RS. 69,6 4,713/ - . CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS , MORE SO, WHEN THE SHED THAT WAS AN OLD STRUCTURE AND WAS DEMOLISHED BY THE PURCHASER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DVO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VALUING THE SHED AT RS.69,64,713/ - . AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE VALUER AT RS.2.10 LAKHS IS ALSO ON A LOWER SIDE. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE VALUE ADOPTED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS RESTRICTED TO RS.20 LAKHS , WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE A ND ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE 9 ITA NO.2797/PUN/2016 DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN VALUE OF SHED AT RS.20 LAKHS AND RE - WORK THE CAPITAL GAINS . IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE AMENDED GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 4 T H DAY OF JANUARY , 20 20 . SD/ - SD/ - PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ANIL CHATURVEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 1 4 T H JANUARY , 20 20 GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 2 , PUNE 4. / THE PR.CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // // TRUE COPY// / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE