Venus Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5335/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97433 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDREKAR
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO ITA NO. 5335/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 VENUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., VS. ASSISTANT CIT, (NOW MERGED WITH AVANTHA REALTY LTD.) CIRCLE 17(1), THAPAR HOUSE, 124 JANPATH, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAACV3258L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.C. YAD AV, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.P. CHANDR EKAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 01 .07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 :09.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS BAD I N LAW AND ON FACTS. 2) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LOS S COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SHARE OF M/S. PI ONEER LTD. IS NOT ALLOWABLE, IGNORING THAT THE VALUATION OF SHARES AR RIVED BY INDEPENDENT VALUER FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMALGAMATION. 2 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW AND MORE PARTICULARLY ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILAB LE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS WRONG IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AND SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION ARE NOT FRR E FROM DOUBT AND THEREBY DISALLOWANCE AS MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF LOSS RS.4,47,55,491 UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS IS WR ONG IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 4) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THAT THE VALUE OF SHARES HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE VALUER BY APPLYING ONE OF PERMISSIBLE METHOD OF VALUATION UNDER THE INCOME -TAX. 2. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVAN CED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. 3. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS AS TO WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS.4,47,55,491 CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF LOSS UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN TREATING THE TRANSACTION DOUBTFUL. 3 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENTS AND PURCHASE /SALE OF LAND AND IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY. APART FROM BUSINESS LOSS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DISCLOSED LOSS FROM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.5,21,22,725. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF SHARES SOLD DURING THE YEAR ON WHICH LOSS WAS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED LONG TERM CAP ITAL LOSSES ON SALE OF SHARES OF THREE UNLISTED COMPANIES, NAMELY, THE PIO NEER LTD., ULTIMA AND SOLARIS HOLDING LTD. THESE SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAR AND THE LOSS ARISEN WAS DUE TO INDEXED COST. IN CASE OF SAL E OF SHARES OF THE PIONEER LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE OF 10 LACS SHARES OF THE SAID COMPANY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 LAC I.E. AT JUST RS.1.1 0 PER SHARE, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THE COST OF SUCH SHARES AT RS.4,00, 00,000 I.E. RS.40 PER SHARES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH COPY O F BALANCE SHEET OF THE SAID COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2008 AND 31.3.2009. THE ASS ESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF PIONEER LTD. AS ON 31.3.2008. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE SAID BALANCE SHEET WAS INCOMPLETE AND DID NOT CONTAIN ANY SCHEDULE AND DETAILS. HE, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT TH E SAID BALANCE SHEET SHOWED THAT THE BOOK VALUE OF SHARES WAS RS.3.50 PE R SHARE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ATTACHED AN Y BALANCE SHEET OF THE 4 PIONEER LTD. AS ON 31.3.2009 NOR FURNISHED COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN OR OTHER DOCUMENT OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HA D ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION OF SUCH SALE OF SHARES WAS RS.1 LAC ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FURT HER THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FURNISHED COPY OF SHARES TRANSFERRED DEED N OR ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE BUYER STATING THE SAID CONSIDERATION. THE ASSES SING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF UNLISTED SHARES OF PIONEER LTD. REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNVERIFIE D DUE TO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE RELEVAN T AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND ADDED THE CLAIMED LOSS OF RS.4,47,55,491 BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE SAME. 5. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS ON THE ISSUE OF GENUIN ENESS OF THE CLAIMED LOSS OUT OF THE SELLING OF SHARES, THE LEARNED AR S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.4,47,55,49 1 ON THE SALE OF SHARES OF PIONEER LTD., WHICH SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASS ESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4 CRORES. TH E ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SOLD THE SHARES OF TWO OTHER UNLISTED COMPANIES, NAMELY, SOLARIS HOLDINGS AND ULTIMA HYGIENE LTD. THE SHARES OF THESE TWO COMPANI ES WERE SOLD AT PAR AND THE LOSS ACCRUED DUE TO INDEXATION WAS ALLOWED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN 5 RESPECT OF SHARES OF PIONEER LTD., THE ASSESSING OF FICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THESE SHARES, HAVING FACE VA LUE OF RS.10 AT A PREMIUM OF RS.30 AND THE TOTAL COST OF ACQUISITION WAS RS.40 PER SHARE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SOLD THESE SHARES @ RE. 0.10 TO THE PURCHASER AND HAS INCURRED LOSS. 6. REGARDING THE DOUBT EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF SHARES OF PIONEER LTD., ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COMPLETE BALANCE SHE ET OF PIONEER LTD. AND THE PAPERS SUBMITTED WERE NOT SIGNED BY THE AUDITOR S OR BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NO T CORRECT AS COMPLETE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS EVIDE NT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), A COP Y THEREOF HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 1 TO 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. REGARDING THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE BOOK VALUE OF THE SHARES AS SHOWN BY PIONEER LTD. IS RS. 3.50 PER SHARE, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 45 READ WITH S EC. 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO VALUE SHARES AT THE 6 RATE OF RS.3.50 HAS NOT BEEN AT ALL MENTIONED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THU S, THE VALUE OF SHARES AT THE RATE OF RS.3.50 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN PLACE OF RS.0.10 PER SHARE IS NOT VALID. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE OVER LOOKED THAT THE SHARES WERE DULY TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF OTHER PARTY AN D THE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. IN SUPPORT, HE REFERRED PAGE NO S. 67 AND 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE COPIES OF SHARES CERTIFICATE. 8. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS IS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN SECTIO N 48 OF THE ACT AS IN THE SECTION THE EXPRESSION USED IS FULL VALUE OF CONSI DERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUED, MEANING THEREBY THAT THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY FAIR MARKET VALUE OR ESTIMATION. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE AGREED CONSIDERATION. IT IS THE SETTLED POSIT ION OF LAW THAT IN CASE OF SALE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REPLACE THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN SUPPOR T, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. NILOFER SINGH 309 ITR 233 (DELHI); 2. GEORGE HANDORSON 66 ITR 622 (S.C); 3. GILLANDERS ARBUTHONOT 87 ITR 407 (S.C); 7 4. MORARJI TEXTILE LTD. ITA NO. 1979/BOM/2009; 5. MGM BENEFIT TRUST ITA NO. 316/BUM/2009 DT. 26. 11.2009; 9. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW HAVE OVERLOOKED THE AUDITORS REPORT OF PIONEER LTD. CLE ARLY SHOWING THE VALUE OF SHARES AS ON 31.3.2008 AT RS.0.17 PER SHARE. IN THI S REGARD, HE REFERRED PAGE NO. 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E. AUDITORS REPORT. HE SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT AUDITORS HAD ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ACCUMULATED LOS SES OF THE COMPANY ARE MORE THAN 50% OF ITS NET WORK. HE REFERRED PAGE NO. 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW HAVE COMPLETELY DISCARDED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VA LUER IN RESPECT OF THE VALUE OF SHARES. THE SAID REPORT WAS PREPARED BY TH E VALUER APPLYING NAV METHOD. HE SUBMITTED THAT A COPY OF THE SAID REPORT HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS. 44A TO 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 10. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) HAS COMPARED THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A SSESSEE VIS--VIS COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AND AFTER ANA LYZING THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT DIFFERENCE IN SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSEE IS ONLY RS.34 LACS. HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF MAKING ANY SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.34 LACS ON ACCOUNT 8 OF ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF SHARES, THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) HAS SUSTAINED THE ENTIRE LOSS AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 11. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE AS GENUINE AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE NET FIGURE OF LOS S AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS COMPUTATION AND NO SEPARATE ADDITIO N OF RS.1 LAC HAS EVER BEEN MADE. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) BOTH HAVE ACCEPTED THE SALES CONSIDERATION FIGURE. 12. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT REPORT OF VALUER IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE DISCARDED WITHOU T THEIR BEING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD SHOWING THAT THE REPORT OF VALUE R IS NOT CORRECT. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.K. CONSTRUCTION & CO. 167 TAXMAN 171 (DELHI). 13. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT THE TRANS ACTION AMONG THE GROUP COMPANY IS NOT PROHIBITED UNDER THE LAW AND A N ASSESSEE CAN SELL 9 SHARES AT LESSER PRICE TO ITS SUBSIDIARY. IN THIS R EGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. CALCUTTA DISCOUNT 91 ITR 8 (S.C) HOLDING THAT A COMPANY C AN SOLD SHARES TO ITS SUBSIDIARY AT LOWER PRICE AND HAS WISDOM TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIABILITY. 14. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMED TRANSACTION. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 70(2), A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS CAN ONLY BE SET OFF WITH LON G TERM GAIN AND NOT OTHERWISE AND IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THER E WAS NO LONG TERM GAIN AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS N O ULTERIOR MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BEHIND THE TRANSACTION AS HAS BEEN ALLEGED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS LOST THE OPPORTUNIT Y OF CARRYING FORWARD THIS LOSS IN UPCOMING YEARS BY VIRTUE OF AMALGAMATI ON. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS A BONA FIDE AND GENUINE TRANSACTION WITHOUT ANY COLORABLE DEVICE. THE LEARN ED AR ALSO REFERRED PAGE NOS. 12 TO 45; 43 AND 44; 44A-56; 61 AND 62, 73 TO 90 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E. COPIES OF AUDITOR REPORT ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEET OF PIONEER LTD. FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09, CERTIFICATE OF AUDITORS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF SHARE VALUE, VALUE ANALYSIS OF SHARE S DONE BY P.W.C. OF SHARES OF PIONEER LTD., SHARES CERTIFICATE ISSUED I N FAVOUR OF M/S. A.S.A. 10 AGENCIES, SHARES CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF EPIC ADVI SOR; BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. A.S.A. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10; BALANCE SHEET O F M/S. SOLARIS HOLDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10; BALANCE SHEET OF SOLAR IS CHEMICALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND BALANCE SHEET OF JANPAT H INVESTMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 15. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DIS CUSSED HEREINABOVE. 16. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, WE FIND THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FOLLOWING COMPUTATION OF CAP ITAL GAINS/LOSS: NAME OF CO. DATE OF PURCHASE NO. OF SHARES AMOUNT INDEXED COST DATE OF SALE SALE CONSIDERATION PROFIT/(LOSS) THE PIONEER LTD. 30,03,2007 10,00,000 4,00,00,000 4,48,55,491 07.02. 09 1,00,000 (4,47,55,491) ULTIMA 01.12.2005 7,50,000 75,00,000 87,82,696 07.0 2.09 75,00,000 (12,82,696) SOLARIS HOLDING LTD. 16.01.2007 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,62,09,538 72.02.09 5 ,01,25,000 (60,84,538) 17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIMED LOSS REGARDING THE SHARES TRANSACTION OF ULTIMA AND SOLARIS HOLDINGS LTD. BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIMED LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES OF THE PIONEER LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 11 DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COMPLETE BALANCE SHEET OF PIONEER LTD., THE PAPERS SUBMITTED WERE NOT SIGNED BY THE AUDITORS OR BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, THE BOOK VALUE OF THE SHARES AS SHOWN BY PIONEER LTD. IS RS. 3.50 PER SHARE AND HENCE THE PRICE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN ITS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND THE ITAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO MEET OUT THESE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOW ED THE LOSS IGNORING THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE VALUATION REPORT OF INDEPENDENT VALUER WHO HAD DETERMINED THE VALUE OF SHARES BY APPLYING NAV METHOD, WHICH IS WELL ACC EPTED METHOD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE OVERLOOKED THAT THE SHARES W ERE DULY TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF OTHER PARTY AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS R ECEIVED BY CHEQUE. BESIDES THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO REMAINE D THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS IS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNE R LAID DOWN IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT WHEREIN EXPRESSION USED IS FULL VALUE O F CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUED. THE MAIN THRUST BEHIND THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY FAIR MARKET VALUE OR ESTIM ATION AND IN CASE OF SALE OF SHARES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REPLA CE THE VALUE OF THE 12 CONSIDERATION AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE FURTH ER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE C OMPLETELY DISCARDED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUER IN RESPECT OF THE VA LUE OF SHARES, WHICH REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE VALUER APPLYING NAV METHOD. 18. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IN THE CASE OF SALE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REPLACE THE VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION AGR EED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND STRENGTH FROM THE ABOVE CIT ED DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NILOFAR SINGH (SUPR A) HOLDING THAT THE EXPRESSION FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION USED IN SE CTION 48 OF THE ACT DOES NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO MARKET VALUE. SIMILAR VIE W HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN OTHER DECISION, CITED HEREINABOVE, BY THE LEARNED A R. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED THAT A REPORT OF A VA LUER IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE DISCARDED WITHOUT T HERE BEING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD SHOWING THAT THE REPORT OF THE V ALUER IS NOT CORRECT. IT IS WELL SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS CITED OF HON'BLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.K. CONSTRUCTION & CO. (SUPRA). IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALE OF 10 LACS SHARES OF PIONEER LTD. FO R A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 LAC ONLY I.E. @ RS.0.10 PER SHARE. THE COST OF SUCH SHARES HAD BEEN 13 SHOWN AT RS.4 CRORES I.E. RS.40 PER SHARE. THE SUMM ARIZED POSITION OF VALUE PER SHARE COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AUDITORS AND VA LUER IS AS UNDER: VALUE PER SHARE AS COMPUTED BY APPELLANT COMPANY VALUE PER SHARE AS PER AUDITOR CERTIFICATE VALUE PER SHARE AS PER INDEPENDENT VALUER (0.17) (0.21) 0.10 19. THE SHARES WERE SOLD TO A.S.A. AGENCIES PVT. LT D. @ RS.0.10 PER SHARE ON 31.3.2009. THE LOSS INCURRED ON THE SALE O F SHARES WAS RS.4,47,75,491. 20. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS THAT THE E XPRESSION FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION USED IN SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 DOES NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO MARKET VALUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING NO POWER TO REPLACE THE VALUE OF THE CON SIDERATION AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITH ANY FAIR MARKET VALUE OR E STIMATION. ONLY BECAUSE THE PIONEER LTD. HAD SHOWN THE BOOK VALUE OF SHARES AT THE RATE OF RS.3.50 PER SHARE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO IGNORE THE PRICE AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMED LOSS, EVEN IGNORING THE VALUATION REPORT. WE THUS WHILE SETTIN G ASIDE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,47,55,491 INCURRED ON THE SALE OF SHARES OF TH E PIONEER LTD. THE ISSUE IS 14 THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELATED GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 21. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 .09.2015 SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 /09/2015 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON COMPUTER 24.09.2015 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24.09.2015 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 28.09.20 15 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 29.09.2015 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 28.09.2015 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.09.2015 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.