SHRI MADHUKAR SHYAMRAOJI DAFE, Amaravati V. ITO,(OSD), Amaravati

ITA 337/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2152 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: C J THAKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 337/NAG/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO. 337/NAG/2013. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08. SHRI MADHUKAR SHYAMRAOJI DAFE, THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER (O.S.D.), AMRAVATI. VS. AMRAVATI. PAN AAUPD7300F. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.J. THAKAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.R. NINAWE. DA TE OF HEARING : 13 - 07 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 TH JULY, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR DATED 28 - 06 - 2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) - II ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF I.T.O., AMRAVATI. 2. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) - II ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSION PROPERLY 3. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) - II ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING ASSESSEES VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM . 4. LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN COMPUTING AND CHARGING CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.45,73,951/ - AND CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. 5. LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ALSO NOT GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 54EC FOR RS.15,00,000/ - AND SECTION 54B(2) FOR RS.10,67,180/ - . 2. AT THE OUTSET LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE SHALL NOT BE PRESSING FOR GROUND NO. 5 RAISED AS ABOVE. HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 ITA NO. 337/NAG/2013 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS AGGRIEVED ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF TWO PR OPERTIES SOLD. 4. AS REGARDS THE FIRST PROPERTY IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT IT WAS A LAND AND THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND WHICH WAS SOLD ON 10 - 11 - 2006 AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS RS.95,25,600/ - WHEREAS THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE WAS RS.51 LAKHS. THE ISSUE WAS SENT TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE AO PROCEEDED TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS THE DVOS REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED UPTO THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT. SUBSEQ UENTLY THE DVOS VALUATION REPORT WAS RECEIVED ON 25 - 03 - 2010 AND ACCORDING TO WHICH THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.1,17, 60,000/ - . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE VALUATION SHOULD BE MUCH LOWER. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO APPROPRIATE APPROACH ROAD. FURTHER THERE WERE SOME ENCROACHMENT S ALSO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A REPORT OF A REGISTERED VALUER WHICH VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS.47,62,800/ - . HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HELD AS UNDER : 6.1 THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR VALUING THE PROPERTY AT A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, VALUE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE SAID LAND WAS S ITUATED ON THE BORDER OF TWO VILLAGES AND HAD A 'PANDAN' I.E. A NARROW ROAD ABUTTING THE LAND AND THAT SINCE ALL THE ADJOINING PIECES OF LAND HAD RAISED STRUCTURES AND WERE ENCROACHINQ ON THE PANDAN, ACCESS TO APPELLANT'S PROPERTY AT GAT NO.350 WAS TOT ALLY BLOCKED. IT IS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUENT ABSENCE OF ANY APPROACH ROAD THAT THE LAND HAD NO PRACTICAL USE AND COULD NOT GET ANY CUSTOMER AND THAT THEREFORE HAD A COMPARATIVELY LOW VALUE AND IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD SELL THE PROPERTY TO SOME BUILDER OR 'SOME STRONG PERSONS' WHO COULD GET THE ENCROACHMENT REMOVED AND THAT THEREFORE THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE SANDAL GROUP WHO ARE BUILDERS IN PUNE IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005 THROUGH A BROKER. 6.2 HOWEVER NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE SAID PROPERTY DID NOT HAVE ANY APPROACH ROAD AT THE TIME OF ITS SALE. THE ONLY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT ARE THE LETTERS WRITTEN TO THE TEHSI LDAR, MUSLI TALUKA DATED 04 - 02 - 2000 AND ONE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE POLICE INSPECTOR, PAUD POLICE STATION ON 05 - 02 -- 2003 WHICH ARE IN THE FORM OF COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENT OF 3 ITA NO. 337/NAG/2013 THE SAID PROPERTY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS EVENTUALLY SOLD ON 10 - 11 - 2006 WHILE THE SAID COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN 2000 & 2003. THIS WOULD BY ITSELF INDICATE THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE SAID POLICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ATTENDED TO SINCE NO COMPLAINT HAS APPARENTLY MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE PERIOD AFTER 2003 TO UPTO 2006 WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS EVENTUALLY SOLD. HAD THE MATTER NOT BEE N SORTED OUT TO THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, HE WOULD HAVE PERSISTED WITH HIS EFFORTS AND RELEVANT EVIDENCES WOULCL HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE WITH HIM. 6.3 THE OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IS THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY ITS REGISTER ED VALUER SHRI A.N. BAPAT. IN HIS VALUATION REPORT IT IS STATED BY THE VAIUER THAT THE LAND HAD BEEN LOCKED WITHOUT ANY APPROACH OR ACCESS ROAD. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE VALUER HAS RELIED ON CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH FORM PART OF THE VALUATION REPORT. THIS VALUATION REPORT IS DATED 10 - 11. - 2010 AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FACT WHETHER THE SAID PROPERTY WAS ACCESSIBLE OR NOT IN 2006 WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE VALUER TO ASCERTAIN. HE HAS THEREFORE RELIED ON THE EVIDENCES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT WHICH INC LUDE CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN ABOUT 2006. ANY REPORT BASED ON SUCH EVIDENCE CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE RELIABLE. 6.4 THE VALUATION REPORT ALSO STATES THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI K. B. BANDAL WH O THEN SOLD TO A THIRD PARTY (M/S. VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMATIC PVT. LTD.) WHO PURCHASED THE INDUSTRIAL PLOT IN THE ADJOINING PROPERTY (GAT NO. 285) WHICH GIVEN ACCESS ROAD TO GAT. NO. 350. THE APPELLANT SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SHRI BANDAL FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 51 LACS ON 10 - 11 - 2006 WHILE SHRI SANDAL SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY TO THE THIRD PARTY M/S VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMATIC PVT. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,42,65,000/ - ON 15 - 12 - 2006. THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY HAS INCREASED FROM THE SMALL AMOUNT OF RS. 51 LACS TO RS. 1,42,65,000/ - . THE FACT THAT M/S VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMATIC PVT. LTD. PURCHASED AN ADJOINING PLOT WHICH PROVIDED ACCESS TO GAT NO. 350 IS THE EXPLANATION BEING FURNISHED TO JUSTIFY THE MASSIVE DIFFER ENCE IN THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AT WHICH THE APPELLANT SOLD IT AND AT WHICH SHRI K. B. BANDAL SOLD IT. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT NO EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS INDEED IS A FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO E STABLISH THAT M/S. VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMATIC PVT. LTD. DID PURCHASE. THE ADJOINING PROPERTY WHICH PROVIDED ACCESS TO GAT NO. 350. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER HAS A MAP WHICH IS AN ANNEXURE TO THE REPORT (AT PAGE 31. OF TH E PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN VARIOUS ADJOINING PLOT NUMBERS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. THERE ARE 6 SIDES TO THE PROPERTY AND PLOT NUMBERS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ON EACH OF THE 5 SIDES. ON THE 6 TH SIDE TO THE SOUTH MAP IT IS MERELY STATES VILLAGE AMBOLI. THE SAID MAP HA S BEEN ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OF MULSHI AND HAD THE GAT NO. 285 BEEN ABUTTING THE PLOT SOLD, THE SAME :: WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUSLY MENTIONED. THUS THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH/JUSTIFY THE HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE PRICE AT WH'ICH IT SOLD THE PR - OPERTY TO SHRI BANDAL AND THE PRICE AT WHICH SHRI BANDAL SOLD THE PROPERTY IN M/S. VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMATIC PVT. LTD. FOR THIS REASON ALSO IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C SHOULD RIOT BE APPLIED. 6.5 IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE 4 ITA NO. 337/NAG/2013 APPELLANT IN THIS RE G ARD INCLUDING THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER WERE PRESENTED BEFORE THE OVA AND THE OVA HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE ASPECT BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE FINA L VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. EVEN BEFORE THE DV O , NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS NO APPROACH ROAD ON THE DATE OF SALE AND THAT THERE WAS AN ENCROACHMENT WHICH PREVENTED ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. THE OVA HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE APPROACH ROAD FACTOR HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE ARRIVING AT A PROPER VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE OVA HAS ALSO EFFECTIVELY REBUTTED THE ARQUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SALE PRICE OF RS. 51 LACS WAS DECIDED RN DECEMBER, 2005 AND THAT THEREFORE THE DEAL WAS EVENTUALLY FINALIZED AT A LOWER PRICE: THE REPLY OF THE OVA IN THIS REGARD IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER R - 'THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION REGARDING THE DEAL WAS DECIDED IN THE YEAR DEC. 2005 IS AFTER THOUGHT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS REGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SALE ETC. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEAL WAS DECIDED IN DEC.2005./VOR THERE IS ANY MENTION ABOUT IT IN THE SALE DEED DT. 10/11/2006. MOREVER THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN NOV.2006.MEARLY PRODUCING PAPER CUTTING OF PUBLIC NOTICE DT.09/03/2006 DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE DEAL WAS CONCLUDED IN 2005. GENERALY ANY PRUDENT BUYER WILL CONCLUDE THE DEAL ONLY AFTER ASCERTAINING AND SATISFYING ABOUT THE CLEAR & FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY WAS TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR 2006 ON DT: 10/11/2006 AND THE VALUATION FOR THE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED FOR THE SAME DATE ON WHICH THE SALE DEED REGISTERED/ TOOK PLACE. HENCE THE ESSESSE E' S CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. REGARDING THE OBSTRUCTION OF APPROACH ROAD TO THE PROPERTY, THIS FACTOR IS DULY CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING THE LAND RATE. IF 6.6 THE DVO HAD ADOPTED 'COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE' METHOD OF VALUATION OF PROPE RTY. ONE OF THE SALE INSTANCES IS THE SAME PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI BANDAL AND THEN SOLD BY SHRI BANDAL TO MLS VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMATIC PVT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,42,65,000/ - . EVEN THE OTHER SALE INSTANCES QUOTED BY THE OVO WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS INFERIOR TO THE PROPERTY UNDER VALUATION HAS BEEN SOLD @ 660/ PER SQ.MT. WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE PRICE AT WHICH THE APPELLANT CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN SOLD T HE PROPERTY. 6.7 IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT VALUATION REPORT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IS BASICALLY FLAWED AS THE VALUER HAS PROVIDED DEDUCTION @ 30% IN VIEW OF THE OBSTRUCTION TO THE APPROACH ROAD, 10% FOR OPEN SPACE ANCL COMMON AMENITIES AND 10% FOR INTERNAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT WHICH RESULTS IN CL TOTAL OF 50% DEDUCTION OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN QUOTED BY THE OVO AND THE RELEVANT COMMENT OF THE OVO IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - 'THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED REGISTERED. VALUER REPORT BY ONE MR. A.N. BAPAT WHOSE REGISTRATION NUMBER IS QUOTED AS CAT - A - 5 ITA NO. 337/NAG/2013 106 OF 1988. ACCORDING TO THE REGD. VALUER THE DEDUCTION OR 30% IS CONSIDERED FOR THE OBSTRUCTION TO THE APPROACH ROAD, 10% FOR OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AMENITIES AND 10% FOR INTERNAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS TOTAL 50% IS DEDUCTED FROM STAMP DUTY VALUATION WHICH IS ABSURD AND ARBITRARY. MOREOVER THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOR CITED ANY REHABLE SALE INSTANCES WHICH WI LL REFLECT THE TRUE MARKET VALUE. HENCE, THE REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. 11 I FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE ABOVE COMMENTS OF THE DVO . 7. CONS I DER ING THE ABOVE FACTS, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD .AO THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 50C WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER , ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO APPROACH ROAD TO THE LAND. FURTHER MORE THERE WERE ENCROACHMENTS ALSO AND HENCE THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF SALE WAS MUCH LOWER THAN THE STAMP VALUATION RAT ES. THUS LEARNED COUNSEL PLEADED THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEES VALUER SHOULD BE ADOPTED. 7. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I NOTE THAT THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10 - 11 - 2006 AT A CONSIDERATION OF RS.51 LAKHS TO SHRI BANDAL. THE SAI D SHRI BANDAL SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY TO THE THIRD PARTY M/S VOSS EXOTECH AUTOMATIC PVT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF R.1,42,65,000/ - ON 15 - 12 - 2006. THUS IN A ONE MONTH PERIOD THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF THE SAME LAND BY APPROXIMATELY RS.1 CRORE. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD ON 10 - 11 - 2006 SHOULD BE RS.47,62,800/ - IS NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THE SAME PROPERTY CANNOT HAVE ENHANCEMENT OF RS.1 CRORE IN A ONE MONTH PERIOD. THIS IS BEYOND PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY. FURTHER MORE I FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED A REASONABLE ORDER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE DVO ALSO HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,17,60,000/ - . HOWEVER, SINCE THE VALUE 6 ITA NO. 337/NAG/2013 ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS RS.92,50,000/ - , THE SAME VALUE HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THIS IS VERY FAIR AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE AGGRIEVED ON THIS ACCOUNT. HENCE I AFFIRM THE ORDER OF LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE QUA THE FIRST PROPERTY. 8. ANOTHER PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.2 LAKHS. THE AO NOTED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS RS.5,47,518/ - . IN AN EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE FLAT WAS IN MUTILATED CONDITION. FOR LAST 20 YEARS THE FLAT HAD NO REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. WITHOUT GIVING HEED TO THIS CONDITION THE SVO MECHANICALLY STATED THE RATE APPLICABLE TO NEW BUILDING THEREFORE THERE WAS NO TAKERS OF THE PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. THE ASSESSEE SOLD IT IN EXTREMELY HELPLESS CONDITION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS REQUESTED TO SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.2 LACS BE ADOPTED. OTHERWISE THE VALUATION OF FMV BE REFERRED TO VALUATION OFFICE R. HOWEVER, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO. HOWEVER, SINCE THE DVOS REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED, THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF TH E RATE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. 9. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO HOLDING AS UNDER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. AO HAD ASKED THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH REASONS AS TO WHY THE VALUATION IS LOWER THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS EVIDENCED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF SAID FLAT. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE (LIKE VALUATION REPORT) WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN A BAD CONDITION AND WAS THEREFORE SOLD AT A LOWER PRICE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO TO APPLY OF PROVISION OF SECTION 50C TO DETERMINE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARIING NON SAL E OF THE SAID FLAT. 10. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 7 ITA NO. 337/NAG/2013 11. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE AO IN THIS CASE HAS REFERRED THE VALUATION TO THE DVO. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WHISPER IN TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF DVOS REPORT. TILL DATE THE REVENUE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SHOW THE DVOS REPORT. I FIND THAT THIS IS A VERY STRANGE SITUATION. ABSENCE OF DVOS REPORT DESPITE OF SO MUCH ELAPSE OF TIME IS NOT AT WA LL WARRANTED. I REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO SHALL CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AND BRINGING ON RECORD THE VALUATION DONE BY THE DVO. 12. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF JULY,2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 15 TH JULY, 2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SHRI MADHUKAR S. DAFE, R U KMINI NAGAR, AMRAVATI - 444606. 2. I.T.O. (O.S.D.), AMRAVATI. 3. C.I.T. - III, NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS), - II, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKODE.