ITO, Ward - 42(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Gita Roy, Kolkata

ITA 440/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9274 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MALAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 37

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , , , , , /AND , . . !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE SRI C. D. RAO, AM] # # # # / I.T.A NO. 440/KOL/2010 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-42(1), KOLKATA. VS GITA ROY (PAN-ACKPR 4291 E) ( )* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S. K. MALAKAR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A. K. TULSIYAN !- / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.514/XII/42(1)/07-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.1 2.2009. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-42(1), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12.12.2007. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, AS DETERMINED BY DVO INSTEAD OF VALUE ASSESSED BY STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY AND ADOPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THIS, THE REVENU E HAS RAISED ONLY FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND: 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY SOLD AS PER DVO REPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS IN PLACE OF VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND CONSIDERED BY A.O. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. ITA 440/K/2010 GITA ROY AY 05-06 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS CO-OWNER, TO THE EXTENT OF SHARE, OF PROPERTY AT 76, COTTON STREET , KOLKATA-7 (COVERED AREA OF 4265 SFT. AT THE GROUND FLOOR, 3785 SFT. AT THE FIRST FLOOR A ND 3000 SFT. AT THE SECOND FLOOR CONTAINING 8 COTTAHS 2 CHITTAKS 22 SFT. AS PER SALE DEED) AND THE SAME WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND D ISCLOSED SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE SALE DEED FOR HER HALF SHARE AT RS.20 LACS AND COMP UTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LTCG) AT NIL BY T AKING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.30,81,600/-. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SHE HA S FILED VALUATION REPORT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE A S ON THE DATE WAS AT RS.6.42 LACS. ON THAT BASIS, THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AND INDEXED COST WAS CALCULATED AT RS.30,81,600/-. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICED FROM THE SALE DEED REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY THAT THE STAMP VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IS AT RS.1,32,2 2,327/-, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED HER HALF SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT R S.20 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE LTCG BE NOT TAKEN AS PER THE VALUATION OF STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY BY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERT Y IN THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN DECLARED AT RS.20 LACS AND INDEXED COST WAS CALCULATED AT RS.30 ,81,600/- THEREBY RESULTING INTO NIL LTCG. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UNDER: LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY AT 76, C OTTON ST., KOLKATA-7 FOR THE F.Y. 2004-05: SALE CONSIDERATION (AS VALUED BY VALUATION AUTHORI TY : RS.1,32,22,327/- LESS : INDEXED COST OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN BY TH E : RS. 30,81,600/- ASSESEE (FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y RS.1,01,50,727/- RS.6,42,000/- AS PER VALUATION REPORT FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE) 50% OF SUCH L.T.C.G RS.1,01,40,727/- COMES TO RS.5 0,70,364/- WHICH BELONGS TO SMT. GITA ROY, THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 4. BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF CITA, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF HER HALF SHARE, OF THIS 100 YEAR OLD HOUSE PROPERTY , BY VIRTUE OF A PARTITION SUIT IN THE ITA 440/K/2010 GITA ROY AY 05-06 3 MATTER OF ASSESSEES MOTHER LATE SUSHAMA BALA LAW. ACCORDING TO HER, THIS PROPERTY WAS SITUATED IN A NARROW LANE AND FULLY TENANTED PR OPERTY WITH ENCROACHMENT AND SUB- TENANTS. SHE STATED THAT EVICTION SUIT WAS ALSO PE NDING SINCE 1982 I.E. SUIT NO. 831 OF 1982 AND 2168 OF 2000. SHE STATED THAT NOTIONAL RE NT AT RS.12,000/- P.A. WAS ALSO DEPOSITED BY THE TENANTS IN THE COURT AS AGAINST TH E PROPERTY TAX OF RS.23,296/- P.A. ACCORDING TO HER, THIS PROPERTY WAS LOSS MAKING PRO POSITION AND FURTHER NO BUYERS WERE FORTHCOMING TO BUY A 100 YEAR OLD PROPERTY, WHICH I S UNDER LITIGATION AND TENANTED. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES VALUED TH E PROPERTY, WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DA TE OF TRANSFER. SHE STATED THAT SALE DEED OF THIS PROPERTY WAS SIGNED, EXECUTED AND SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR ON 15.10.2004 AND THE REQUISITE STAMP DUTY, AS PER LAW , WAS AFFIXED AND PAID BUT RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS DECLARED AT RS.20 LACS FO R HER HALF SHARE. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 31.12.2006 I.E. MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE SALE WAS COMPLETED, THE STAMP DUTY WAS ASSESSED AT A VERY HIGH FIGURE, AS PER RATES PREVAI LING AT THAT TIME AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EVEN A PARTY TO THAT SALE, WHICH HAD BEEN COMPL ETED LONG BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT OF STAMP DUTY. FINALLY, SHE STATED THAT THIS PROPERT Y WAS ASSESSED FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY ON 31.12.2006, WHEREAS IT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSE SSEE ON 15.10.2004 AND RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, I.E. THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WAS FILED ON 28.7.2005. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, SHE STATED THAT THE VALUE FINALLY ADOPTED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OR THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THAT DATE. THE CIT(A), AS REQUESTED BY ASSESSEE, REFERRED THE MATT ER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 25.3.2008 STATED, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REMAND REPORT AS EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A), IS BEING AGAIN REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY. 1. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIO NED ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE ORDER DT.12-12-07 WITH THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,70,364/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY APPLYING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 2. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN BEFORE THE UNDERSI GNED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORI TY UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C EXCEEDS THE FAN MARKET VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER FOR THE ATTRACTION OF SECTION 50C(2) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE ONLY REQUESTED TO GRANT HER 15 DAYS TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF A VALUATION REPORT FROM AN APPROVED VALUER THROUGH A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT. 05-12-07 RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE ON 06-12-07. SHE DID NOT I NSIST FOR REFERENCE TO VALUATION ITA 440/K/2010 GITA ROY AY 05-06 4 OFFICER U/S. 55A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AGAI N THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY VALUATION REPORT OF AN APPROVED VALUER ALSO FOR FA IR MARKET VALUE AS ON DATE OF TRANSFER. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCE, KOLKATA VIDE LETTER DT. 11-12-07 CONFIRMED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT PREMISES NO. 7 6, COTTON STREET, KOLKATA REGISTERED BY DEED NO.12532 FOR 2006 HAS BEEN ASSE SSED AT RS.1,32,22,327/-. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEED WAS ALSO ENCLOSED. AS THE CASE WAS TO BE COMPLETED BY 31-12-07 THE QUESTION OF GIVING OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBMISSION OF AN APPROVED VALUERS REPORT WAS IMMA TERIAL AS SUCH VALUE MIGHT NOT BE ACCEPTED AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) WAS MADE ON 12-1 2-07 BY TAKING THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE NEVER STATED SUCH DETAILS DURING T HE HEARING STAGES. 5. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) REFERRED THIS MATTER TO THE DVO FOR ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OF FICER OBTAINED REPORT FROM THE DVO AND SUBMITTED THROUGH JCIT TO CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED NO OBJECTION FOR ADOPTION OF VALUE AS DETERMINED BY DVO VIDE REPORT NO. 1876/DVO/ITD/09-10/507 DT 18.11.09.THE DVO VALUE THE PROPERTY AT RS.30,87,675 /- AND THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE AC T, DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER : THE APPELLANT, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT AS PER LAW THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO DVO AS THE VALUE ADO PTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY IS MUCH MORE THAN THE FMV OF THE PROPERT Y AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. MY LD. PREDECESSOR AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO. ACCORDINGLY THE A.O. GOT THE P ROPERTY VALUED AND SEND THE VALUATION REPORT. THE DVO VALUED THE PROPERTY AT R S.30,87,675/-. THE APPELLANT AFTER GOING THE VALUATION REPORT HAS ACCEPTED THE ABOVE SAID VALUATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 50C, I FIND THAT MY LD. PREDECESSOR HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO AND GOT THE PROPERTY VALUED. THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT WH ILE SUBMITTING THE DVO REPORT HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, I DIRECT THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD AS PER DVO RE PORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. THE APPELLANTS GROUND I S PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. ITA 440/K/2010 GITA ROY AY 05-06 5 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SHRI S. K. MALAKAR STATED THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 50C SUB-SECTION (2) OF THE ACT IS VERY CLEAR AND THE AS SESSING OFFICER MAY REFER OR MAY NOT REFER, IT IS HIS DISCRETION AND IT IS NOT A MANDATO RY PROVISION. HE STATED THAT MAY NOT BE READ AS SHALL. ACCORDINGLY, HE ARGUED THAT THE S TAMP VALUATION AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RIGHT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AN D THAT SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SRI A. K. TULSIYAN RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY DVO IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HERE, THE ADMITTED FACT IS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND THE STAMP VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS AT RS.1,32,22,327/- AND ASSESSEES HALF SHARE COMES TO RS.66,11,163.50. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE SAL E CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED AT RS.20 LACS FOR HER HALF SHARE. IT IS AN AD MITTED FACT THAT THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO DVO BY THE CIT(A) AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE DVO VALUED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY AT RS.30,87,675/- AND IN VIE W OF THIS, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE LTCG ON THE BASIS OF F AIR MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DVO. NOW, WE HAVE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE ACTION O F THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR VALUING THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER REFERENCE OR NOT. AND FURTHER, WHETHER IT IS MANDATORY FOR T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION, FOR ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKE T VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG OR IT IS DISCRETIONARY ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. FOR THIS, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AS IT IS. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION 50C READS AS UNDER: 50C. (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 VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORI TY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ST AMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SU CH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUI NG AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC TION (1), WHERE ITA 440/K/2010 GITA ROY AY 05-06 6 (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED 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 BY THE STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) O F SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB-SECTION (5) OF S ECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUC H REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, VA LUATION OFFICER SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SEC TION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALU E ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE F ULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER.] 9. WE FIND THAT FROM THE ABOVE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, AS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F.1.4.2003, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR DETERMINING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CASE S OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS INTRODUCED. AS PER THIS PROVISION, IN CASE THE CONS IDERATION DECLARED TO BE RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF LAND OR BUILDIN G OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOP TED OR ASSESSED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION AND CAPITAL GAI NS SHALL BE CHARGED ACCORDINGLY U/S. 48 OF THE ACT. THIS POSITION IS IN VIEW OF SUB-SECTIO N 50C(1) OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTION (2) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE VA LUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND HE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASS ESSED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE RELEVANT ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 55A OF THE ACT. IF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFIC ER IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR ITA 440/K/2010 GITA ROY AY 05-06 7 STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO T AKE SUCH FAIR MARKET VALUE TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION BUT IF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE SO DETERMINED BY THE DVO IS MORE THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY STAMP DU TY AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTION OF STAMP DUTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL NOT ADOPT SUCH FAIR MARKET VALUE BUT SHALL TAKE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION TO BE TH E VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY. IN OUR VIEW, IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, WHO ASCERTAINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.30,87,675/- AS AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES AT RS.1,33,22,222/-. IN OUR VIEW, IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C, FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ASSESSED BY THE DVO IS LO WER THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES FOR COLLECTING STAMP DUTY AN D THE VALUE SO ADOPTED BY DVO HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG. WE FIND NO FAULT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGL Y, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- . . , !' , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATED 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 ./ $01 2 JD.(SR.P.S.) !- 3 +4 5!4&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT ITO, WARD-42(1), KOLKATA. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT, SMT. GITA ROY, 49, ARABINDA SARANI, K OLKATA-700 005. 3 . -$ / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. -$ ( )/ CIT, KOLKATA. 5 . => +$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,4 +/ TRUE COPY, !-$?/ BY ORDER, 1 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .