SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-3, JAIPUR

ITA 675/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5944 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAL JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L JAIN S
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Additional evidence; Fair market value; Avoidance of tax; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, E-1, MURLIPURA SCHEME, NEAR KEDIA PLACE, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD 4(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABKPS 6285 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & SHRI S.L. JAIN (ADVOCATES) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 22.03.2018 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-1, JODHPUR (CAMP AT JAIPUR) FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ADDITION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 19,60,4 38/- :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT O F SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 19,60,438/- EVEN WHEN THE CAPITAL ASSETS ( THREE SHOPS) WERE SOLD ON 24/09/2007 FOR RS. 13,51000/-BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BY WAY OF SALE A GREEMENT AND 2 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. RS. 13 LACS WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY CHEQUE NO. 246918 DT. 24/09/2007 AND BALANCE RS. 51000/- WAS TO BE PAID A T THE TIME OF REGISTRY. THE THREE SHOPS WERE BOUGHT BY THE ASSESS EE ON 20/04/2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1356500/-. 2. (A) TRANSFER TOOK PLACE ON 24/09/2007 BY SALE AGREE MENT :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN HOLDING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N IS CHARGEABLE ON THE DATE OF REGISTRY DT. 30/01/2009 AND NOT ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE IN SPITE OF JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF SHRI SANJEEV LAL VS. CIT (2014) 365 ITR 389. THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED IN PURSUANCE OF AGREEMEN T TO SALE DT. 24/09/2007. (B) REMAND REPORT BY AO :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING REMAND REPORT DT. 23/11/2016 IN REGARD TO SALE OF PROPERTY BY SALE AGREEMENT. 3. VALUATION TO DVO :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN NOT REFERRING MATTER FOR VALUA TION TO THE DVO AS REQUIRED FOR COMPUTING FAIR CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECT ION 50C TO AVOID MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AM END OR ALTER THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF APPEAL HE ARING. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS REGARDING FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE IT ACT ADOPT ED BY THE AO AS PER THE STAMP 3 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. DUTY VALUATION AS ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2009 AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE ON 24.09.2007 AND A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE CONSIDERAT ION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT THROUGH CHEQUE. THUS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DATE ON WHICH THE DLC RATE PREVAILING HAS TO BE ADOPTED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 24.09.2007 AND RECE IVED A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 13,00,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 3,51,000/- THROUGH CHEQUE AT THE TIME OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THEREFORE, THE STAMP DU TY VALUATION AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT WOULD BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDE RING THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE IT ACT INSTE AD OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION CONSIDERED BY THE AO ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED ON 30.01.2009. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 09.01.2015 IN CASE OF ITO VS. MODIPO N LTD. IN ITA NO. 2049/DEL/2009 AND 2171/DEL/2009. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT SINCE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2007 ITSELF ON 20 TH APRIL, 2007, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE DLC RATE AT T HE TIME OF PURCHASE AS WELL AS AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.09.2007. DUE TO THE REVISION OF THE DLC RATE SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS EXE CUTED ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2009 AND STAMP DUTY WAS PAID ONLY THEN THE AO HAS DISCRE TION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 4 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. SECTION 50C TO ADOPT ANY OTHER RATE OF STAMP DUTY T HAN THE RATE APPLIED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 24.09.2007 FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND ALSO RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL CONSIDERATION THROUGH CHEQUE AT THE TIME OF AGREEME NT. ONLY RS. 51,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 13,51,000/- WAS BALA NCE AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO TH E TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE AS WELL AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME OF TH E AGREEMENT DATED 24.09.2007. SINCE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION OF RS . 13,00,000/- THROUGH CHEQUE DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2007 AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT, THEREFOR E, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION UNDER THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 50C THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THOUGH THE PROVISO TO SECTION 50C(1) HAS BEEN INSERTED BY FINA NCE ACT, 2016, HOWEVER, THE AMENDMENT TO THE SAID SECTION BY INSERTION OF THE P ROVISO ARE REMEDIAL IN NATURE. THE DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITO VS . MODIPON LTD. (SUPRA) HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 13 TO 16 AS UNDER :- 13. THE AFORESAID SECTION PROVIDES THAT WHERE CONSI DERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE, OF A CAPIT AL ASSET BEING A LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY STAMPVALUE AUTHORITY, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY SHALL BE DE EMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION U/S 48 OF THE ACT. IT IS THUS MANIFES T THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP-VALUATION AUTHORITY IS DEEMED AS THE CONSIDER ATION FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. HOWEVER, SUCH VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP- VALUATION AUTHORITY SHOULD BE IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER BY THE ASSESSEE, OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS. NOW, IN THE INSTANT 5 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. CASE, UNDISPUTEDLY ON THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE-DEE D CIRCLE, RATE WAS RS.20,000/- PER SQ METER AND THEREFORE, THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE P URPOSE OF STAMP-DUTY WAS RS.4,03,20,000/- WHICH WAS DEEMED AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDS THAT CIRCLE-RAT E ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT REGISTERED WITH REGISTRAR OF GHAZIABAD WAS FOR RS.1 3,000/- PER SQ METER, WHICH WORKS OUT TO BE THE ACTUAL SALE-CONSIDERATION OF RS .2,62,08,000/- AND THEREFORE THE SAID FIGURE SHOULD BE ADOPTED INSTEAD OF RS.4,03,20 ,000/-. IN OUR OPINION, ON THE PECULIAR SET OF FACTS WE FIND THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS DULY REGISTERED, WHEREBY, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS AGREED TO BETW EEN PARTIES WORKS OUT TO RS.2,62,08,000/- AND WAS ADOPTED AS THE CONSIDERATI ON FOR THE PAYMENT OF STAMP- DUTY I.E.@ 4% OF RS.2,62,08,000/- I.E. RS.10,48,320 /-. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE AFORESAID VALUATION IS ALSO THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VA LUATION AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWE VER SUBSEQUENT TO THE SAID AGREEMENT TO SELL, THERE WAS CHANGE IN THE CIRCLE R ATE FROM 16TH JUNE 2014, WHEREBY THE VALUATION WAS ENHANCED FROM RS.13,000/- TO RS.2 0,000/- PER SQ METER. THIS ENHANCEMENT WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE (SELLER). IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE, THAT THE BUYER HAS GIVEN MORE THAN THE CONSIDERATION THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PARTIES WHERE THEY EXECUTED THE AGR EEMENT TO SALE. FURTHERMORE ON FACTS OF A CASE, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT R EGISTRATION OF THE TRANSFER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT TO SALE CANNOT BE TER MED AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 50C OF THE ACT (SANJEEV LAL & ANR. VS. CIT & ANR. (2014) 365 ITR 389(SC)), WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY, A RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSFEREE/VENDEE. WHEN SUCH A RIGHT IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, THE VENDOR IS RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE SAID PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE RIGHT IN PERSONAM I S CREATED, HAS A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, IF THE VENDOR, FOR SOME REASON IS NOT EXECUTING THE SALE D EED. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SOME RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE VE NDOR TO THE VENDEE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE TIME WHEN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ENTERED INTO. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AFORESTATED QUESTION HAS TO BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE A CT, WHICH DEFINES THE WORD TRANSFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, ONE CAN SAY THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTINGUISHED BY EXECUTION OF AN AGREEME NT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSET CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. RELEV ANT PORTION OF SECTION 2(47), DEFINING THE WORD TRANSFER IS AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. 2(47) TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES,-.... (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR NOW IN THE LIGHT OF DEFINITION OF TRANSFER AS DEF INED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS EXTINGUISHED AND THAT RIGHT IS TRANSFERRED TO SOMEO NE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET. 14. MOREOVER, IN AN IDENTICAL MATTER VISHAPATANAM B ENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF LAHIRI PROMOTERS VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.12/VI/VIZAG /20 09 HELD AS UNDER:- 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE AGITATED BEFORE US REVOLVES AROUND SECTIO N 50C OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT THE SECTION 50C(1) BELOW: '50C (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUI NG AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF, A CAPITAL ASSET, BE ING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION R EFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAY MENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOP TED OR ASSESSED SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESU LT OF SUCH TRANSFER.' THIS SECTION PROVIDES FOR ADOPTION OF VALUE ASSESSE D/DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PA YMENT OF STAMP DUTY (HEREINAFTER 'STAMP DUTY VALUE'), IF THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED IS LESS THAN THE STAMP D UTY VALUE. SECTION 50C WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2002 W.E.F. 01. 04.2003. 9. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HEREIN ENTERED INTO A SEPARATE SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE TWO VENDEES RESPECTIVELY ON 27.03.2003. THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED CERTAIN REASONS FOR NOT EXECUTING THE SALE DEED IMMEDIATELY WHICH WERE NOT FOUND TO BE FA LSE. THEREAFTER, THE SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED ON 30.06.2005 BY COMPLYING WITH THE TERMS OF THE SALE AGREEMENT. HENCE THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FO R THE CONSIDERATION AS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS PER THE SALE AGREEMEN T. IF WE APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C LITERALLY, THE TAX AUTHOR ITIES ARE RIGHT IN ADOPTING THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITY FOR THE P URPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. HOWEVER, LD AR HAS HEAVILY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VERGHE SE VS. ITO, REFERRED SUPRA, WITH REGARD TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 50C IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. 10. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI K .P. VARGHESE VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT WHILE INTERPRETING A PROV ISION, STRICTLY LITERAL READING OF SECTION SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED IF IT LEAD S TO MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE AND ABSURD CONSEQUENCES. HOWEVER ATTEM PT SHOULD BE MADE TO DISCOVER THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE FROM THE LANGUAGE USED BY IT. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED THE SAID DECISION IN TH E CONTEXT OF THEN EXISTING SEC 52(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDED THAT WHERE A CAPITAL ASSET IS TRANSFERRED AND IF IN THE OPINION OF THE ITO, THE F AIR MARKET VALUE OF THAT ASSET EXCEEDS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION D ECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY AN AMOUNT OF NOT LESS THAN 15% OF THE VALUE 50 DECL ARED, THEN THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF ITS TRANSFER. THE REVENUE TOOK THE STAND THAT IN OR DER TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 52(2), IT IS ENOUGH IF IT IS SHOWN THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE EXCEEDED THE DISCLOSED VALUE BY 15%. HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A FAIR AND REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC 52(2) WOULD BE TO READ INTO IT A CONDITION THAT IT WOULD APPLY ONLY W HERE THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER IS UNDER- STATED AND HENCE IT WOULD HA VE NO APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF A BONAFLDE TRANSACTION WHERE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER IS CORRECTLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE 'EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVA TIONS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT ON THE RULE OF INTERPRETATION AND THE LO GICAL CONCLUSION: '5. NOW, ON THESE PROVISIONS THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHAT IS THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF S.52, SUB-S.(2). THE ARGUMEN T OF THE REVENUE WAS, AND THIS ARGUMENT FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE MAJORI TY JUDGES OF THE FULL BENCH, THAT ON A PLAIN AND NATURAL CONSTRUCTIO N OF THE LANGUAGE OF S.52, SUB-S.(2), THE ONLY CONDITION FOR ATTRACTI NG THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT PROVISION WAS THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON THE DATE OF THE T RANSFER EXCEEDED THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION DECLARERED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN AMOUNT OF NOT LESS TH AN 15% OF THE VALUE SO DECLARED. ONCE THE ITO IS SATISFIED THAT T HIS CONDITION EXISTS, HE CAN PROCEED TO INVOKE THE PROVISION IN S.52, SUB -S.(2), AND TAKE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TRANSFER RED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER AS REPRESENTING THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AND COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THAT BASIS. NO MORE IS NECESSARY T O BE PROVED, CONTENDED THE REVENUE. TO INTRODUCE ANY FURTHER CON DITION SUCH AS UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE T RANSFER WOULD BE TO READ INTO THE STATUTORY PROVISION SOMETHING WHIC H IS NOT THERE; INDEED, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO RE-WRITING THE SECTION. THIS ARGUMENT WAS BASED ON A STRICTLY LITERAL READING OF S.52, SU B-S.(2), BUT WE DO NOT THINK SUCH A CONSTRUCTION CAN BE ACCEPTED. IT I GNORES SEVERAL VITAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MUST ALWAYS BE BORNE IN MIND WHEN WE ARE INTERPRETING A STATUTORY PROVISION. THE TASK OF INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTORY ENACTMENT IS NOT A MECHANICAL TASK. IT IS MORE THAN A MERE READING OF MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE BECAUSE FEW WORDS POSSESS THE PRECISION OF MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLS. IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO DISCOVER THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE FROM THE LANGUAGE USED BY IT AND IT MUST ALWAYS BE REMEMBERED THAT LANGUAGE IS AT BEST AN IM PERFECT 8 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. INSTRUMENT FOR THE EXPRESSION OF HUMAN THOUGHT AND, AS POINTED OUT BY LORD DENNING, IT WOULD BE IDLE TO EXPECT EVERY S TATUTORY PROVISION TO BE 'DRAFTED WITH DIVINE PRESCIENCE AND PERFECT C LARITY'. WE CAN DO NO BETTER THAN REPEAT THE FAMOUS WORDS OF JUDGE TEA MED HEARED HAND WHEN HE SAID: .. IT IS TRUE THAT THE WORDS USED, EVEN IN THEIR LI TERAL SENSE, ARE THE PRIMARY AND ORDINARILY THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE OF INTERPRETING THE MEANING OF ANY WRITING: BE IT A STATUTE, A CONTRACT OR ANYTHING ELSE. BUT IT IS ONE OF THE SUREST INDEXES OF A MATURE AND DEVELOPED JURISPRUDENCE NOT TO MAKE A FORTRESS OUT OF THE DIC TIONARY: BUT TO REMEMBER THAT STATUTES ALWAYS HAVE SOME PURPOSE OR OBJECT TO ACCOMPLISH, WHOSE SYMPATHETIC AND IMAGINATIVE DISCO VERY IS THE SUREST GUIDE TO THEIR MEANING'. WE MUST NOT ADOPT A STRICTLY LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF S.52, SUB-S.(2), BUT WE MUST CONSTRUE ITS LANGUAGE HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAD IN VIEW IN ENACTI NG THAT PROVISION AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SETTING IN WHICH IT OCCUR S. WE CANNOT IGNORE THE CONTEXT AND THE COLLOCATION OF THE PROVI SIONS IN WHICH S.52, SUB-S(2) APPEARS, BECAUSE, AS POINTED OUT BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN THE MOST FELICITOUS LANGUAGE: '...THE MEANING OF A SENTENCE MAY BE MORE THAN THAT OF THE SEPARATE WORDS, AS A MELODY IS MORE THAN THE NOTES, AND NO DEGREE OF PARTICULARITY CAN EVER OBVIATE RECOURSE TO THE S ETTING IN WHICH ALL APPEAR, AND WHICH ALL COLLECTIVELY CREATE.' KEEPING THESE OBSERVATIONS IN MIND WE MAY NOW APPRO ACH THE CONSTRUCTION OF S.52, SUB-S. (2). 6. THE PRIMARY OBJECTION AGAINST THE LITERAL CONSTR UCTION OF S.52, SUB S.(2), IS THAT IT LEADS TO MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE AND ABSURD CONSEQUENCES. IT IS TRUE THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF A SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION CANNOT ALTER THE MEANING OF A STATUTOR Y PROVISION BUT IT CAN CERTAINLY HELP TO FIX ITS MEANING. IT IS A WELL RECOGNIZED RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT A STATUTORY PROVISION MUST BE SO CONSTRUED, IF POSSIBLE, THAT ABSURDITY AND MISCHIEF MAY BE AVOIDE D. THERE ARE MANY SITUATIONS WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION SUGGESTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE WOULD LEAD TO A WHOLLY UNREASONABLE RESULT WHICH COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, A CASE WHERE A AGREES TO SELL HIS PROPERTY TO B FOR A CERTAIN PRICE AND BEFORE THE SALE IS COMPLETED PURSUANT TO THE AGREEM ENT - AND IT IS QUITE WELL KNOWN THAT SOMETIMES THE COMPLETION OF T HE SALE MAY TAKE PLACE EVEN A COUPLE OF YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT - THE MARKET PRICE SHOOTS UP WITH THE RESULT THAT THE MARKET PRICE PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF SALE EXCEEDS THE AGREED P RICE, AT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, BY MORE THAN 15% OF SUCH AGREED P RICE. THIS IS NOT AT ALL AN UNCOMMON CASE IN AN ECONOMY OF RISING PRI CES AND IN FACT WE WOULD FIND IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE THE SALE IS 9 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. COMPLETED MORE THAN A YEAR OR TWO AFTER THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT THAT THE MARKET PRICE PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF THE SALE IS VERY MUCH MORE THAN THE PRICE AT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SOLD U NDER THE AGREEMENT. CAN IT BE CONTENDED WITH ANY DEGREE OF F AIRNESS AND JUSTICE THAT IN SUCH CASES, WHERE THERE IS CLEARLY NO UNDER- STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER AND THE TRANSACTION IS PERFECTLY HONEST AND BONAFIDE AND, IN FACT, IN FULF ILMENT OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY, SHOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS WHICH HAVE NOT ACCRUED OR ARISEN TO HIM? IT WOULD INDEED BE MOST HARSH AND INEQUITABLE TO TAX THE ASSESSEE ON INCOME, WHICH HAS NEITHER ARISE N TO HIM NOR IS RECEIVED BY HIM, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS CARRIED OUT THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION UNDERTAKEN BY HIM. IT IS DIFFICULT TO CO NCEIVE OF ANY RATIONAL REASON WHY THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE THO UGHT IT FIT TO IMPOSE LIABILITY TO TAX ON AN ASSESSEE WHO IS BOUND BY LAW TO CARRY OUT HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT THE AGREED PRICE AND HONESTLY CARRIED OUT SUCH A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGAT ION. IT WOULD INDEED BE STRANGE IF OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW SHOULD AT TRACT THE LEVY OF TAX ON INCOME, WHICH HAS NEITHER ARISEN TO THE ASSE SSEE NOR HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. IF WE MAY TAKE ANOTHER ILLUST RATION, LET US CONSIDER A CASE WHERE A SELLS HIS PROPERTY TO B WIT H A STIPULATION THAT AFTER SOME TIME WHICH MAY BE A COUPLE OF YEARS OR MORE, HE SHALL RE-SELL PROPERTY TO A FOR THE SAME PRICE. COU LD IT BE CONTENDED IN SUCH A CASE THAT WHEN B TRANSFERS THE PROPERTY T O A FOR THE SAME PRICE AT WHICH HE ORIGINALLY PURCHASED IT, HE SHOUL D BE LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON THE BASIS AS IF HE HAS RECEIVED THE MARKET V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF RE-SALE, IF, IN THE MEAN WHILE, THE MARKET PRICE HAS SHOT UP AND EXCEEDS THE AGREED PRICE BY M ORE THAN 15%. MANY OTHER SIMILAR SITUATIONS CAN BE CONTEMPLATED W HERE IT WOULD BE ABSURD AND UNREASONABLE TO APPLY S.52; SUB-S (2) , ACCORDING TO ITS STRICT LITERAL CONSTRUCTION. WE MUST, THEREFORE, ES CHEW LITERALNESS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF S.52, SUB-S (2), AND TRY TO A RRIVE AT AN INTERPRETATION WHICH AVOIDS THIS ABSURDITY AND MISC HIEF AND MAKES THE PROVISION RATIONAL AND SENSIBLE, UNLESS OF COUR SE, OUR HANDS ARE TIED AND WE CANNOT FIND ANY ESCAPE FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION. IT IS NOW A WELL-SETTLED RULE OF CO NSTRUCTION THAT WHERE THE PLAIN LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTO RY PROVISION PRODUCES A MANIFESTLY ABSURD AND UNJUST RESULT WHIC H COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THE COURT MA Y MODIFY THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE LEGISLATURE OR EVEN 'DO SOME V IOLENCE' TO IT, SO AS TO ACHIEVE THE OBVIOUS INTENTION OF THE LEGISLAT URE AND PRODUCE A RATIONAL CONSTRUCTION; VIDE LUKE VS. IRC (1963) AC 557 : (964) 54 ITR 692(HL). THE COURT MAY ALSO IN SUCH A CASE READ INT O THE STATUTORY PROVISION A CONDITION WHICH, THOUGH NOT EXPRESSED, IS IMPLICIT AS CONSTITUTING THE BASIC ASSUMPTION UNDERLYING THE ST ATUTORY PROVISION. WE THINK THAT, HAVING REGARD TO THIS WEL L RECOGNIZED RULE OF INTERPRETATION, A FAIR AND REASONABLE CONSTRUCTI ON OF S.52, SUB- S(2), WOULD BE TO READ INTO IT A CONDITION THAT IT WOULD APPLY ONLY WHERE THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER IS UNDERST ATED OR, IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED A LARGER CONSIDERATION FOR 10 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. THE TRANSFER THAN WHAT IS DECLARED IN THE INSTRUMEN T OF TRANSFER AND IT WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF A BONAF IDE TRANSACTION WHERE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE T RANSFER IS CORRECTLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE ARE SEVERAL IMPORTA NT CONSIDERATION WHICH INCLINE US TO ACCEPT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF S.5 2, SUB-S(2). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT WHILE INTERPRETING A SECTION IT WOULD BE LEGITIMATE TO CONSIDER WHAT WAS THE MISCHIEF AND DEFECT, WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE REMEDIED BY AN ENACTMENT. IN THAT CONNECTION THE SP EECH MADE BY THE FINANCE MINISTER WHILE MOVING THE AMENDMENT IS EXTREMELY RE LEVANT AS IT THROWS A CONSIDERABLE LIGHT ON THE OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE OF ENACTMENT. HOWEVER, AS POINTED OUT BY LD AR THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCTION OF SEC 50C WAS NOT MENTIONED BY THE FINANCE MINISTER AT THE TIME OF MOVING AMENDMENT. I T WAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED IN THE NOTES ON CLAUSES AND EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ATTACHE D TO THE RELEVANT FINANCE BILL. HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.R. PALANI SWAMY AND OTHERS SUPRA, WHILE UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VA LIDITY OF SEC 50C, HAD AN OCCASION TO SPELL OUT THE OBJECTIVE OF INTRODUCING SEC 50C. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: 17. LET US CONSIDER THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF T HE PARLIAMENT IN INSERTING THE PROVISION S.50C OF THE IT ACT. IT IS OBVIOUS FR OM THE READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION AND RATHER IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE SA ME IS INSERTED TO PREVENT LARGE SCALE UNDER VALUATION OF THE REAL VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY IN THE SALE DEED SO AS TO DEFRAUD REVENUE, THE GOVERNMENT LEGITIMATE LY ENTITLED TO BY PUMPING IN BLACK MONEY. THE IMPUGNED PROVISION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED TO CHECK SUCH EVASION OF TAX BY UNDERVALUING THE REAL PROPERTIES. . TAX COULD BE EVADED BY BREAKING THE LAW OR COULD BE AVOIDED IN TERMS OF THE LAW. WHEN THERE IS A FACTUAL AVOIDANCE OF TAX IN TE RMS OF LAW, THE LEGISLATURE STEPS INTO AMEND THE IT LAW TO CATCH SUCH AN INCOME WITHIN THE NET OF TAXATION.' HENCE THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 50C IS TO PREVENT UNDER VALUATION OF THE REAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SALE DEED TO AVOI D PAYMENT OF TAX OR DUTY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO, WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, I S AKIN TO THE OBJECTIVE OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 52, WHICH WAS EXISTING EARL IER. 11. IN THE CASE OF KP.VARGHESE, SUPRA THE HON'BLE A PEX COURT CONTEMPLATED A SITUATION, BY WAY OF AN EXAMPLE, WHERE THE COMPLETI ON OF SALE TOOK PLACE AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. IN THI S CONNECTION IT IS PERTINENT TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT, AT THE COST OF 11 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. REPETITION, AS THE SAID EXAMPLE CONTEMPLATED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THERE ARE MANY SITUATIONS WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION S UGGESTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE WOULD LEAD TO A WHOLLY UNREASONABLE RES ULT WHICH COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. TAKE, FOR EX AMPLE, A CASE WHERE A AGREES TO SELL HIS PROPERTY TO B FOR A CERTAIN PRIC E AND BEFORE THE SALE IS COMPLETED PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT-AND IT IS QUITE WELL KNOWN THAT SOMETIMES THE COMPLETION OF THE SALE MAY TAKE PLACE EVEN A COUPLE OF YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT-THE MARKET PRICE SH OOTS UP WITH THE RESULT THAT THE MARKET PRICE PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF SAL E EXCEEDS THE AGREED PRICE, AT WHICH THE' PROPERTY IS SOLD, BY MORE THAN 15% OF SUCH AGREED PRICE, THIS IS NOT AT ALL AN UNCOMMON CASE IN AN ECONOMY O F RISING PRICES AND IN FACT WE WOULD FINE IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE THE SALE IS COMPLETED MORE THAN A YEAR OR TWO AFTER THE DATE OF THE AGREE MENT THAT THE MARKET PRICE PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF THE SALE IS VERY MU CH MORE THAN THE PRICE AT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SOLD UNDER THE AGREEMENT. CAN IT BE CONTENDED WITH ANY DEGREE OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE THAT IN SUCH CAS ES, WHERE THERE IS CLEARLY NO UNDER-STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF T HE TRANSFER AND THE TRANSACTION IS PERFECTLY HONEST AND BONAFIDE AND, I N FACT, IN FULFILMENT OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY, SHOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS WHICH HAVE NOT A CCRUED OR ARISEN TO HIM? IT WOULD INDEED BE MOST HARSH AND INEQUITABLE TO TAX T HE ASSESSEE ON INCOME, WHICH HAS NEITHER ARISEN TO HIM NOR IS RECEIVED BY HIM, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS CARRIED OUT THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION UNDERTAK EN BY HIM. IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF ANY RATIONAL REASON WHY THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT FIT TO IMPOSE LIABILITY TO TAX ON AN ASSESSEE WHO IS BO UND BY LAW TO CARRY OUT HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT THE AGREED PRICE AND HONESTLY CARRIED OUT SUCH A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. IT WOULD INDEED BE STRANGE IF OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW SHOULD ATTRACT THE LEVY OF TAX ON INCOME, WHICH HAS NEITHER ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS BEEN RECEIVE D BY HIM.' 11.2 THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P.VERG HESE, SUPRA HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 52(2), THAT WAS EXISTING AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO A HONEST AND BONA' FIDE TRANSACTION WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECTL Y DECLARED OR DISCLOSED BY HIM AND THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OR SUPPRESSION OF THE CONSIDERATION. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SP EECH OF THE FINANCE MINISTER, HAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE OBJECT OF INTRODU CTION OF SECTION 52(2) WAS TO CURTAIL THOSE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF PROPER TY, WHERE THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS UNDERSTATED IN THE SALE DEED. HOWEVER, THOUGH THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 50C WAS NOT M ENTIONED IN THE RELEVANT FINANCE BILL OR IN THE SPEECH OF THE FINANCE MINIST ER, YET, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.R. PALANI SWAMY AND OTH ERS, SUPRA HAS STATED THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC 50C WAS INSERTED IN THE I NCOME-TAX ACT TO PREVENT LARGE SCALE UNDER VALUATION OF REAL VALUE OF PROPER TY IN THE SALE DEED, SO AS TO DEFRAUD REVENUE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS LEGITIMA TELY ENTITLED TO, BY PUMPING IN BLACK MONEY. THUS WE CAN SEE THAT THE PU RPOSE OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 52(2) EARLIER AND SECTION 50C W.E.F. 01. 04.2003 ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING SIMILAR OBJECTIVES. 12 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. 11.3 IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAS FULFILLED A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ON 30-6-2005, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS BOUN D BY LAW TO CARRY OUT AS PER THE SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN MARCH, 2003. NOW THE NEXT QUESTION THAT REQUIRES TO BE ADDRESSED IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY U NDER' STATEMENT OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME WHEN THE SALE AGRE EMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED A COPY OF THE CERTIFI CATE DATED 16.04.2010 ISSUED BY THE JT. SUB REGISTRAR, VISAKHAPATNAM BY W AY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ACCORDING TO THE SAID CERTIFICATE, THE MA RKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT ALLIPURAM WARD WAS RS. 5000/- AS ON 26.3.2003. ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, THE SALE VALUE A GREED TO BY THE PARTIES, AS PER THE SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON 27-03-2003 W AS MORE THAN THE MARKET VALUE FIXED BY THE JT. SUB REGISTRAR AT THE TIME THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO. THUS ACCORDING TO LD AR, THERE IS NO UNDERSTATEMENT OR SUPPRESSION OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT THERE WAS ANY UNDERSTATEMENT OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATIO N. 12. THUS, BY EXECUTING THE SALE DEED IN JUNE, 2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY COMPLETED THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION IMPOSED UPON I T BY VIRTUE OF THE SALE AGREEMENT, SINCE THE PROCESS OF SALE HAS BEEN INITI ATED FROM THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT, IN OUR OPINION, THE CHARACTER OF THE TRA NSACTION VIS-A-VIS INCOME TAX ACT SHOULD BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE CO NDITIONS THAT PREVAILED ON THE DATE THE TRANSACTION WAS INITIALLY ENTERED I NTO. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C SHOU LD BE LOOKED AT ONLY ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CE RTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, REGARDING M ARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF THE SALE AGREEM ENTS. THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORI TIES. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C SHOULD BE A PPLIED TO THE IMPUGNED SALE TRANSACTIONS AS ON THE DATE ON WHICH SALE AGRE EMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO. SINCE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C AS ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENTS IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN S ON SALE OF IMPUGNED PROPERTIES AFTER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AS ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IS REVERSED. 15. THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION, HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF KODURA SATYA SRINIVAS ITA NO.556/559 DATED 02.07.2010 AND MOOK RANI REDDY 311/VISAKA) DATED 10.12.2010. NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN BRO UGHT TO OUR NOTICE. 16. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE, FACTUAL AND JUDICIA L POSITION WE DELETE THE ADDITION. AS A RESULT THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE 13 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION AND THEN ASSESS THE CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, ARISING F ROM TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/09/20 19. SD/- ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 19/09/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 4(3), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 675/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 14 ITA NO. 675/JP/2018 SHRI RAVI PRAKASH SAINI, JAIPUR.