Krithika Lingappan, CHENNAI V. ITO International Taxation Ward 1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2959/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4412 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SUBASHRI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Competent authority; Cancellation of registration; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2959/CHNY/2018 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MRS. KRITHIKA LINGAPPAN, 45/2, VGP SELVA NAGAR, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, VELACHERY, CHENNAI - 600 042. PAN : ABXPL 0701 B V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD I(2), CHENNAI. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCAT E ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : MS.M. SUBASHRI, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 06.03.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -16, CHENN AI, DATED 27.08.2018 AND PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2. 2. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DAUGHTER OF A RETI RED ARMY OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D A PIECE OF 2 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 LAND IN KOLATHUR ON 11.06.1997 FROM ONE SHRI PAZHAN I AND SMT. SANTHI. THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY O NE SHRI NARAYANASWAMY IN HIS CAPACITY AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FOR THE ABOVE SAID SHRI PAZHANI AND SMT. SANTHI. THE VERY SAME VENDOR, WHO EXECUTED THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, HAS ALSO EXECUTED ANOTHER DEED ON 20.07.1999 FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRING THE VERY SAME LAND TO SHR I I.A.J. BALAN, SHRI I.P. ANDREW RAJ, SHRI I.S.J. ROZARIO, SHRI I. FRANC IS JEYARAJ AND SHRI I. JEROME MICHAEL PUSHPANATHAN. ACCORDING TO THE L D. COUNSEL, THE EXECUTION OF FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT BY THE VERY SAME V ENDOR IN RESPECT OF THOSE PERSONS WERE NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSE SSEE AT THE EARLIER POINT OF TIME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE FRAUDULENT EXECUTION OF THE SECOND SALE D EED IN FAVOUR OF THE THIRD PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER EXECUTE D GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF HER FATHER COL. V.N. LINGA PPAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEES FATHER COL. V.N. LI NGAPPAN APPROACHED THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR GRANT OF PAT TA. TO THE SURPRISE AND SHOCK OF COL. V.N. LINGAPPAN, THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES INFORMED THAT THE PATTA WAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF SHRI I.A.J. BALAN, SHRI I.P. ANDREW RAJ, SHRI I.S.J. ROZ ARIO, SHRI I. FRANCIS JEYARAJ AND SHRI I. JEROME MICHAEL PUSHPANATHAN. A CCORDING TO THE 3 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEES FATHER APPROACHED THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES BY MEANS OF VARIOUS PETITIONS RIGHT FRO M TAHSILDAR AND UPTO DISTRICT COLLECTOR FOR CANCELLATION OF PATTA G RANTED TO THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS. SIMULTANEOUSLY, COL. V.N. LINGAPPAN HAD ALSO APPROACHED REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES RIGHT FROM SUB REGISTRAR AND UPTO THE LEVEL OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION TO CANCEL THE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS REGISTERED SUBSEQUENTLY. COL. V .N. LINGAPPAN ALSO MADE A POLICE COMPLAINT. HOWEVER, NO AUTHORIT IES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT INCLUDING DISTRICT COLLECTOR, INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND HIGHER POLICE OFFICIALS, HAD TAKEN ANY ACTION ON THE COMPLAINT MADE BY COL. V.N. LINGAPPAN. MOREOVER, T HE PROPERTY WAS ALSO ENCROACHED BY THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS. 3. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICA TE GRANTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR ON 09.04.2009, THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT DISCLOSED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED O N 11.06.1997 IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AS ON 09.04.2009. HOWEVER, THE ENCUMBRAN CE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VERY SAME AUTHORITY ON 18.08.2008 DIS CLOSED THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. 4 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 COUNSEL, IT APPEARS THAT THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY IN A FRAUDULENT MANNER REGISTERED THE SECOND DOCUMENT FROM THE VERY SAME VENDOR IN FAVOUR OF THIRD PARTIES. ON A QUERY FROM THE BE NCH WHETHER ANY REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGIST RATION AND OTHER REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE LD.COUNSEL INVITED THE ATT ENTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO PAGE 56 OF THE PAPER-BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TAHSILDAR, SHOLINGANALLUR IN FACT PREPARED A REPORT AND RECOMMENDED FOR CANCELLATION OF PATTA GRANTED IN TH E NAME OF THE OTHER PARTIES REFERRED ABOVE AND ALSO RECOMMENDED F OR GRANT OF PATTA IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE REPORT, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAIL ABLE AT PAGE 56 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WAS PREPARED BY THE TAHSILDAR, SHOL INGANALLUR, ADDRESSED TO REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TAMBARAM, IT APPEARS THAT THE TAHSILDAR DID NOT SIGN THE REPORT AND ALSO IT W AS NOT FORWARDED TO RDO. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALSO ACTED WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION IN S UPPORTING THE CASE OF THE THIRD PARTY. 4. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF LETTER, SAID TO BE RECE IVED FROM DISTRICT REGISTRAR, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT P AGE 94 OF THE PAPER- BOOK, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE REQUEST OF 5 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 THE ASSESSEE TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT SAID TO BE MADE ON 20.07.1999 IN FAVOUR OF THE ABOVE SAID THIR D PARTY WAS ALSO REJECTED ON THE GROUND THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE REGISTRATION ACT TO CANCEL THE DOCUMENT ALREADY REGISTERED. A SIMIL AR REPLY WAS ALSO RECEIVED FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION , A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 94A OF THE PAPER-BOOK. HAVING LEFT WITH NO OTHER REMEDY AND OUT OF COMPULSION AND PRESSURE FRO M THE ABOVE SAID THIRD PARTIES/PERSONS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. CO UNSEL, THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ABOV E PERSONS FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF 6,00,000/-. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD UNDER PRESSURE. HOWEVER , HE CHOSE TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. A CCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IT IS ONLY A DISTRESS SALE UNDER THE CIRCU MSTANCE WHICH IS EXPLAINED ABOVE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER O UGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER TO FIN D OUT THE ACTUAL MARKET VALUE. WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE VALUATION O FFICER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE FOR E STIMATING THE CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. COUNSEL, 6 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. M. SUBASHRI, THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXECUTE D THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ABOVE SAID SH RI I.A.J. BALAN, SHRI I.P. ANDREW RAJ, SHRI I.S.J. ROZARIO, SHRI I. FRANCIS JEYARAJ AND SHRI I. JEROME MICHAEL PUSHPANATHAN CLAIMING THAT S HE IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE BY HER FATHER COL. V.N. LINGAPPAN. THEREF ORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., AT THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER LITIGATION OR ENCUMBRANCE, HENCE , THE MARKET VALUE WAS ONLY 6,00,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR LESS THAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE PRESCRIBED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OTHER WAY EXCEPT TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING GUID ELINE VALUE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEA LS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS CASE IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF HOW THE STATE MACHINERY, MORE PA RTICULARLY, THE 7 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 REVENUE AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GO VERNMENT FUNCTION. A FAMILY MEMBER OF AN ARMY OFFICER WAS TREATED IN SUCH A MANNER BY THE REGISTRATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BY REGISTERING A DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NO RIG HT OR TITLE OVER THE PROPERTY. WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED AND R EGISTERED ON 11.06.1997 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS NONE O THER THAN A DAUGHTER OF AN ARMY OFFICER, THE VERY SAME SUB REGI STRAR HAS REGISTERED ANOTHER DOCUMENT SAID TO BE EXECUTED BY THE VERY SAME VENDOR ON 20.07.1999 IN FAVOUR OF SHRI I.A.J. BALAN , SHRI I.P. ANDREW RAJ, SHRI I.S.J. ROZARIO, SHRI I. FRANCIS JEYARAJ A ND SHRI I. JEROME MICHAEL PUSHPANATHAN. THE VENDOR AS ON 20.07.1999 HAD NO TITLE AND AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE SAID DOCUMENT. THE TA HSILDAR WITHOUT REFERRING OR IGNORING THE FIRST DOCUMENT EXECUTED B Y THE VENDOR ON 11.06.1999 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, GRANTED PATTA FOR THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF SHRI I.A.J. BALAN, SHRI I.P. ANDREW RAJ, SHRI I.S.J. ROZARIO, SHRI I. FRANCIS JEYARAJ AND SHRI I. JEROME MICHAEL PUSHPANATHAN. WHEN THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TAH SILDAR AND OTHER HIGHER OFFICERS OF STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, IT APP EARS THE TAHSILDAR PREPARED A NOTE / REPORT ADDRESSED TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RECOMMENDING FOR CANCELLATION OF PATTA WHICH WAS ALREADY GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI I.A.J. BALAN, SHR I I.P. ANDREW RAJ, 8 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 SHRI I.S.J. ROZARIO, SHRI I. FRANCIS JEYARAJ AND SH RI I. JEROME MICHAEL PUSHPANATHAN AND TO GRANT PATTA IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE TITLE HOLDER OF THE LAND. THIS REPORT EV EN THOUGH WAS SAID TO BE PREPARED, IT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE TAHSILDAR AND ALSO NOT FORWARDED TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER ACT ION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE TAHSILDAR IS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR GRANT OF PATTA. WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE ABOUT THE FRAUDULENT ISSUE OF PATTA IN FAVOUR OF THE THIR D PARTY, THE TAHSILDAR OUGHT TO HAVE CANCELLED THE PATTA IMMEDIA TELY AND A PATTA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TAHSILDAR HAS NOT ACTED ON THE PETITION RECEIVE D EVEN FROM AN ARMY OFFICER. EVEN THOUGH A REPORT WAS SAID TO BE PREPARED, THE TAHSILDAR FAILED TO FORWARD THE SAME TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES. 7. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEES FATHER COL. V.N. LINGAP PAN APPROACHED THE SUB REGISTRAR, DISTRICT REGISTRAR AN D INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTR ATION OF THE FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY THE VENDOR ON 20.07 .1999 IN FAVOUR OF SHRI I.A.J. BALAN, SHRI I.P. ANDREW RAJ, SHRI I.S.J. ROZARIO, SHRI I. FRANCIS JEYARAJ AND SHRI I. JEROME MICHAEL PUSHPANATHAN. THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS REJECTED B Y THESE 9 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO PROVISIO N FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT IN THE REGISTRATION ACT . IF THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF DOCUM ENT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHICH PROVISION OF THE REGISTR ATION ACT ENABLES THE SUB REGISTRAR TO REGISTER ANOTHER DOCUM ENT FROM THE VERY SAME VENDOR IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME PROPER TY? THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DOCU MENT SAID TO BE REGISTERED ON 20.07.1999 IS A FRAUDULENT ONE. WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED FRAUDULENTLY, THE AUTHORITIES ARE EM POWERED TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION. THEREFORE, CITING THE REG ISTRATION ACT THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION AN D ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH CIVIL COURT AND POLICE AUTHORI TIES IS NOTHING BUT A DERELICTION OF DUTY WHICH CALLS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO BE INITIATED. UNFORTUNATELY, THE STATE MACHINERY HAS NOT ACTED ON THE REQUEST OF AN ARMY OFFICER. IT IS MADE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS T RIBUNAL IS NOT INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS A DAUGHTER OF AN ARMY OFFICER. WHAT THIS TRIBUNAL BRINGS ON RECORD IS THAT IF THIS IS THE STATE OF AFFAIRS FOR AN ARMY OFFICER, WHAT WOULD HA PPEN TO ORDINARY CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY. THE STATE AUTHORITIES ASK ED THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH THE CIVIL COURT EVEN IN THIS FACTUAL SITUA TION IGNORING THE TIME, MONEY REQUIRED TO BE SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COURTS AND 10 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 TRIBUNALS IN THE COUNTRY ARE ALREADY OVERBURDENED. UNLESS THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES TAKE RESPONSIBILITIES AND RED RESS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, IT WOULD BE A DIFFICULT TASK TO REDUCE PENDENCY IN JUDICIAL FORUM AND TO SUSTAIN DE MOCRACY. 8. THE EXISTENCE OF THIS TRIBUNAL MAY BE TRACED TO ARTICLE 323(B) OF THE CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, UNDER THE SCH EME OF INCOME- TAX ACT, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL S ARISING OUT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN T HE INCOME-TAX ACT TO IMPLEAD THIRD PARTIES AS A RESPONDENT IN THE ASSESSMENT / APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DISTR ICT COLLECTOR, TAHSILDAR AND STATE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT ISSUE ANY DIRECTION WITH REGARD TO FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES WHICH IS NOW EXPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THIS TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE IMPLEADED AS PARTY BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS TO CONFINE ITSELF ONLY TO THE COMPUTAT ION OF CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE, ONLY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL WHIC H ARISES OUT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL MADE OBSERVATION IN THE PRECEEDING PARAGRAPH. 11 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 9. ADMITTEDLY, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE SA LE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HER FATHER COL. V. N. LINGAPPAN IS A DISTRESS SALE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF REC ORDED THE SAME IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PARA 5 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS :- 5. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CAREFULLY PERUSED. THOUGH IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY UNDER PRESSURE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C IS CLEAR THAT IF THE SALE VALUE IS LESS THAN THE VALUATION ADOPTED, ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES, THE VALUATION AS ADOPTED, ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES WILL BE CO NSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ARI SING IN TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE THE VALUE ASSES SED BY THE SRO OFFICE WAS 63,14,500/-. HENCE AS PER SECTION 50C OF INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, THE SALE VALUE FOR CALCULATI NG CAPITAL GAIN IS TAKEN 63,14,500/-. 10. WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD UNDER PRESSURE AND T HE CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH WAS NARRATED ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNA L IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ADOPTING GUIDELINE VALUE UN DER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS NOT CALLED FOR. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMS TANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE V ALUATION OFFICER. IN THIS CASE, WE ARE NOT DOING SO SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD UNDER PRESSURE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT REMITTING BACK TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING REFERENCE TO THE 12 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 VALUATION OFFICER WOULD TANTAMOUNT NOT ONLY HARASSI NG THE ASSESSEE FURTHER BUT ALSO RUBBING THE SALT ON THE WOULD AGAI N AND AGAIN. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCE THE ASSESSEE EXECU TED THE SALE DEED, THE APPARENT SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS MARKET VALUE AND THE SAME H AS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A RE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELET ED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST MARCH, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 21 ST MARCH, 2019. KRI. 13 I.T.A. NO.2959/CHNY/18 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-16, CHENNAI 4. 2 ;3 /CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. ) = /GF.