M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

ITA 681/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2165 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Gift; Fair market value; Valuation report; Competent authority
• Section: 50C; 54

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 680& 681/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD., 507, NAVJEEVAN COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACR7504F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/12/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/01/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE COMPOSITE ORDER OF CIT(A), JAIPUR DATED 27.02.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11-12 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TAKING THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF LAND AS 13.04.2010 AS AGAINST THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LA ND OF ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 2 11.04.2007 WHEN THE LAND WAS PURCHASED AND THE POSS ESSION WAS RECEIVED IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT TO SALE OF EVEN DATE AND THEREBY, ASSESSING THE GAIN ON SALE OF THE LAND AS SHORT TER M CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN A DOPTING THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND U/S 50C AT RS . 3.16 CRORES ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF DVO WHICH IS BASED ON THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND NOT THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS REQUIRED U/S 50C(2). HE HAS FURTHER ERR ED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND ALSO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND THEREBY, UP HOLDING THE CAPITAL GAIN DETERMINED BY THE AO AT RS. 2,68,37,20 0/-. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN C ONSIDERING THE COST OF PURCHASE/IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 47,62,800/- AS AGAINST RS. 56,70,055/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN H OLDING THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CAPITAL ASSET BY NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. 9447 DT. 0 6.01.1994. 5. THE ASSESSEE CRAVE TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY AN Y OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND WAS TREATED BY THE AO AS SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F AGENCY. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12 & 2012-13 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 9,83,704/- AN D LOSS OF RS. 29,06,564/- RESPECTIVELY. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 3 THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE SALE DEED DATED 13 .04.2010. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND VIDE SALE DEED DATED 07.03.2 011 AND 04.05.2011 AND CLAIM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE S ALE OF THE LAND. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE SALE DEED DATE 13.04 .2010 AND THEREFORE COMPUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE LAND AS ON 13.04.2010 A S AGAINST 11.04.2007 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE LAND IN QUESTION VIDE AGREEMENT FOR SA LE DATED 11.04.2007 AGAINST THE FULL CONSIDERATION AND POSSESSION OF TH E LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF TH E SAID AGREEMENT THEN, THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF LAND SHALL BE TAKEN A S ON 11.04.2007. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE AND HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AGRICULTURAL L AND AND PRIOR TO ITS CONVERSION TO NON AGRICULTURE USE. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO SCHEDULE CASTE CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED AS BARRED BY S ECTION 42 OF RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT 1955 WHICH PROHIBITS THE SAL E, GIFT OR BEQUEATH ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 4 BY A MEMBER OF SCHEDULED CASTE IN FAVOUR OF ANY PE RSON WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF SCHEDULE CASTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS CONFIRMED THE TREATMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE NEWATA, TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR FROM MOHAN, LAXMAN, RAMU, JAGDISH AND PRABHU MEASURING 2.74 HECTARES FOR RS. 50 LACS VIDE AGREEM ENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND PAID PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSE E ACCOUNTED THE LAND AS FARM HOUSE LAND. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE TH ROUGH THE VENDORS/OWNERS OF THE LAND MOVED APPLICATION TO JAI PUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (JDA) FOR CONVERTING THE AGRICULTURAL LAN D INTO FARM HOUSE LAND. THE CONVERSION CHARGES ARE PAID BY THE ASSESS EE AND DEBITED IN THE RESPECTIVE LAND ACCOUNT. THE JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES (JDA) ACCORDINGLY ISSUED CONVERSION OF LAND USED IN THE N AME OF THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNER ON 03.02.2010 AND 05.02.2010 RESPECTIVEL Y. THEREAFTER TO SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY THE OWNERS OF THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 13.04.2010. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE FARM HOUSE LAND ON MEASURING 18,897.50 SQ. YD. ON 07.03..2011 TO M/S S ONA ENGINEERING ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 5 PVT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,88,97,500/- AND LAND MEASURING 1.16 HECTARE CONVERTED INTO 13,594 SQ. YD. ON 04.05 .2011 TO M/S GALAXY GREEM POWER PVT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2, 30,88,000/-. THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THESE TWO SALES WERE OFFE RED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 & 2012 -13 RESPECTIVELY. THE LD. AR HAS REFERRED TO CLAUSE-5 OF THE AGREEMEN T AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HANDED OVER THE PHYSICAL POSS ESSION OF THE LAND AS AS PER CLAUSE 3 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.200 7. THE SELLERS OF THE LAND ACCEPTED THAT THE SALE DEED WOULD BE EXECU TED AS DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE TRANSFER OF LAND FROM ORIGI NAL OWNERS TO ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED AS PER TERMS OF SECTION 2(47 ) (V) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE HOLDING PERIOD NEEDS TO BE CONSI DERED FROM 11.04.2007 AND NOT FROM 13.04.2010. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, WHERE THE TRANSFEREE IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND WILLING TO PERFORM HIS PART OF THE CONTRACT THEN TH E TRANSFEROR SHALL BE DEBARRED ENFORCING AGAINST THE TRANSFEREE ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE TRANSFEREE HAS TAKEN OR CONTI NUED IN POSSESSION. FROM THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007 IT IS EVIDENT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND WAS WI LLING TO PERFORM HIS ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 6 PART OF CONTRACT. IN FACT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 50 LACS AS PER AGREEMENT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY 29.09.2008 AN D THUS, THERE IS TRANSFER OF LAND TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 2(47) OF THE A CT ON 11.04.2007. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE SALE DEED DAT ED 13.04.2010 MENTIONS THE CHEQUE NUMBER AND DATES AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE PAID THE CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WHE N THE ASSESSEE PAID THE CONSIDERATION AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007 THEN THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF LAND WAS COMPLETED ON 11 .04.2007 ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO ENJOY THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN QUE STION. THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007 COUPLED WITH POS SESSION AND PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION HAS EFFECT OF TRANSFE R AND ENABLING ENJOYMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT T HE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE IS 11.04.2007. SECTION 2(47) STIPULATES A DEFACTO TRANSFER OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. A TRANS FER IS COMPLETED IF THE CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED U/S 2(47) (VI) ARE SATIS FIED THOUGH TITLE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED IN LAW, THERE IS IN SUBST ANCE A TRANSFER OF TITLE IN FACT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BECOM E DEFACTO OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN AS MUCH AS AGREEMENT TO SALE COUPLE D WITH POSSESSION THEREOF HAS ENABLED IT TO ENJOY THE LAND AS ITS OWN ER AND THUS IN ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 7 SUBSTANCE THERE IS A TRANSFER THOUGH MAY NOT BE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE HOLDING PERIOD NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FROM 11.04.20 07 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF THE LAND I S A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT CANNOT BE A PPLIED IN THE CASE THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED L EGALLY UNTIL AND UNLESS THE SAME IS CONVERTED FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON AGRICULTURAL ONE. THE SELLERS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGS T O SCHEDULED CASTE COMMUNITY AND THEREFORE, AS PER SECTION 42 OF RAJAS THAN TENANCY ACT 1955 ANY THE SALE, GIFTS OR BEQUEATH OF THE LAND IS PROHIBITED IN FAVOUR OF ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF SCHEDULED CAST E AND SCHEDULE TRIBE. THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007 IS N OT LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE TRAN SFER OF LAND IN QUESTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 ANY CONTRACT FOR TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT SHALL BE REGISTERED IF THE SAID CONTRACT HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON OR AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF REGISTRATION A ND OTHER RELATED LAW AMENDMENT ACT 2001 AND THEREFORE, IF THE AGREEM ENT FOR TRANSFER ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 8 OF LAND IS REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PU RCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 2.74 HECTARE AT NEWATA, TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007 FOR A CONSID ERATION OF RS. 50 LACS. AS PER CLAUSE-2 OF THE AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE PAID RS. 40,00,000/- VIDE THREE PAY ORDERS DATED 10.04.2007 AND ONE CHEQUE DATED 11.04.2007 OF RS. 10 LACS EACH. THE DETAILS O F THE PAYMENTS GIVEN IN CLAUSE 2 ARE AS UNDER:- ;G FD IZFKE I{K FOSRK US IZFRQY FO; DH DQY /KUJKF 'K ESA LS :I;S 40]00]000@& V{KJS PKYHL YK[K :I;S EK= TFJ;S IS&VK MZJ LA[;K 081166 FNUAKD 10 VIZSY 2007 :I;S 10]00]000@& V{KJS NL YK[ K :I;S EK= IS&VKMZJ LA[;K 081167 FNUAKD 10 VIZSY 2007 :I;S 10] 00]000@& V{KJS NL YK[K :I;S EK= O IS&VKMZJ LA[;K 081168 FNUKAD 10 VI ZSY 2007 :I;S 10]00]000@& V{KJS NL YK[K :I;S EK= RFKK PSD LA[;K 837564 FNUKAD 11 VIZSY 2007 :I;S 10]00]000@& V{KJS NL YK[K :I;S EK= LELR IS&VKMZJ@PSDL ,P-MH-,Q-LH- CSAD FYFEVSM T;IQJ DK BL YS[;I= DKS FUIKFNR DJRS LE; IZKIR DJ FY;S GS FTUDKS IZKIR DJU K IZFKE I{K FOSRKX.K BL YS[;I= ESA LOHDKJ DJRS GSA 'KSK JKF'K LQFO/KKUQ LKJ CJODR IATH;U YSUK R; GQVKA ;G FD F}RH; I{K VHKH FO; I= DK IATH;U DJOKUK UGHA PKGRK GS BLFY;S ;G BDJKJUKEK FY[KK X;K GSA HKFO; ESA TC DHK H HKH F}RH; I{K VIUS LO;A DS UKE VFKOK VIUS }KJK FUNSZF'KR FTL FDLH HKH O;FDR@O;FDR;KSA@LALFKK@DEIUH DS UKE ,D ;K ,D LS VF/ KD FO; I= RS;KJ DJOKDJ NSXK RKS IZFKE I{K F}RH; I{K }KJK RS;KJ DJOK ;S GQ, FO; I= VKFN IJ VIUS GLRK{KJ DJDS LECFU/KR MI&IATH;D DK;KZY; ESA IZLRQR DJ NSXSA RFKK FO; EWY; DH 'KSK JKF'K IZKIR DJ RLNHD JFTLVH DJO K NSXSAA ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 9 THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATI ON OF RS. 50 LACS THE ASSESSEE PAID RS. 40 LACS AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT. THE VENDORS HAVE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE CONSIDERATION OF R S. 40 LACS. AS PER CLAUSE 5 OF THE AGREEMENT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAN D WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- ;G FD MDR HKWFE DK DCTK IZFKE I{K }KJK F}RH; I{K DK S VKT BL BDJKJUKEK DS FUIKNU DS LE; HKKSFRD :I LS LEHKYOK FN;K GS F}R H; I{K MDR HKWFE DH ISEKBZ'K DJKOSA VKSJ MLDK EKUFP= CUKOS RFKK FMEKDSZ 'KU DJKOSA MLESA IZFKE I{K DKS DKSBZ MTZ] ;K ,SRJKT UGHA GKSXKA THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10 LACS WAS PAID O N 29.09.2008 THUS, IT WAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THAT PART CONSIDERATION WA S PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS ALSO HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE IN PA RT PERFORMANCE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LAND WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ENJOYMENT. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT AFTER THE POSSESSION HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT SOME DEVELOPMENT WORK AND THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010. THERE IS NO QUARREL THAT SECTION 42 OF RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 PROHIBITS SALE, GIFT OR BEQUEATH OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY A MEMBER OF SCHEDU LED CASTE IN FAVOUR ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 10 OF A PERSON WHO IS A NOT A MEMBER OF SCHEDULED CAST E HOWEVER, WHEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY THE LAN D WAS CONVERTED FROM AGRICULTURAL TO NON AGRICULTURAL USE THEN, THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 42 OF RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT ARE UNDISPUTED NOT APPLICABLE ONCE, THE LAND WAS CONVERTED TO NON AGRICULTURAL USE. 6. EVEN OTHERWISE THE TERM TRANSFER AS PER SECTION 2(47) R.W.S. 48 OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS WIDER THAN THE TERM SA LE AND IT INCLUDES ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES IN THE PROPERTY EITHER IN PRA ESENTI OR ACCRUING IN FUTURE AS VESTED IN VENDOR. ONCE THESE RIGHTS VESTE D IN THE VENDOR WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TRANSFER, THE VENDOR RETAINS NO RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY TO BE RE-CONVEYED IN THE SUBSEQUENT SALE D EED EXCEPT THE OBLIGATION TO GET THE PROPERTY CONVERTED FOR NON AG RICULTURAL USE AND EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. THE INTENTIONS OF THE P ARTIES ARE RELEVANT AND MUST BE ASCERTAINED FROM A DOCUMENT AS A WHOLE. WHERE THE DEED OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN EXECUTED THOUGH IN VIOLATION O F LAW PRESCRIBING FOR A PREVIOUS SANCTION OR SUBSEQUENT VALIDATION BY A C OMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THOUGH NOT REGISTERED WOULD STILL ATTRACT THE A PPLICATION OF DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE. IN THE CASE IN HAND SINCE, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COULD NOT BE SOLD IN VIEW OF SECTION 42 OF THE RAJA STHAN TENANCY ACT, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 11 11.04.2007 AND THEREAFTER THE LANDS WERE CONVERTED INTO NON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND MORE SPECIFIC FARM HOUSE LAND ON 03.02.2010 AND 05.02.2010 AND THEREAFTER THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTE D BY THE VENDORS ON 13.04.2010. AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THESE ACT AND EV ENTS THAT IT IS CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF TRANSFER WHICH BEGINS WITH TH E AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007, CONVERSION OF THE LAND USE ON 03/ 05.02.2010 AND ULTIMATELY EXECUTION ON SALE DEED ON 13.04.2010. TH E SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010 IS A PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATION UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007, THEREFORE, THE CONVERSION OF THE LAND AFTER THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE IS A POST FACTO CONV ERSION AND THE TRANSFER WOULD EFFECTS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT T O SALE SPECIFYING ALL THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED U/S 2(47) (V) OF THE A CT R.W.S. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. ONCE, THE SALE DEED IS EX ECUTED IN PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT TO SALE AND ALL THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 2(47) OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED IT WOULD CONSTITUTE TRANSFER AND WOUL D BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE ITSELF. 7. THOUGH AS PER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE REGIS TRATION ACT 1908 VIDE AMENDMENT ACT 2001 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITHOUT REGISTRATION SHALL HAVE NO EFFECT OF TRANSFER HOWEVER, THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN A LONG WITH THE SALE ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 12 DEED EXECUTED SUBSEQUENTLY. IT IS NOT A CASE OF TRA NSFER BASED ONLY ON UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS BUT IN THIS CASE THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT HAVE EXECUTED SALE DEED IN PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREE MENT. THEREFORE, THE TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WOULD BE CONSIDE RED AS A COMBINED ACT OF AGREEMENT TO SALE AND SALE DEED AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TR ANSACTION WAS INTENDED AND CONCEIVED BY THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSA CTION. HENCE, AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007, CONVERSION OF L AND USE BY JDA ON 03.02.2010 AND 05.02.2010 AND EXECUTION SALE DEED D ATED 13.04.2010 ARE INTERLINKED AND INSEPARABLE CHAIN OF EVENTS NEC ESSARY FOR TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER. THE CONTENTS OF THE SALE D EED DATED 13.04.2010 CLEARLY SHOW THAT IT IS IN FURTHERANCE OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THE SALE DEED CLEARLY STATES THAT MADE OF PAYMENT O F CONSIDERATION AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04. 2007. THEREFORE, THE POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER AND CONSIDERATION WAS RE CEIVED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE DEED. THE SALE DEED IN FACT RATIFY THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THE PARTI ES WERE VERY MUCH AWARE ABOUT THE NEED OF CONVERSION OF LAND USE AND ACCORDINGLY APPLIED TO JDA FOR CONVERSION WHICH WAS GRANTED IN THE MONT H OF FEBRUARY, 2010 AND THEREAFTER THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED. HEN CE, THE TRANSFER AS ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 13 PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, SUBSEQUEN T PERFORMANCE BY THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT GETTING THE LAND CONVERTED TO NON AGRICULTURAL USE AND EXECUTION ON SALE WHICH HAS RE AFFIRMED THE STATUS OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSFER UN DER THE AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF ALTERING THE SAME. THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN CASE OF SANJAY LAL VS. CIT 365 ITR 389 WHILE CONSIDERING TH E QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE DATE ON WHICH AGREEMENT FOR SALE WAS EX ECUTED COULD BE CONSIDERED THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS TRAN SFER HAS HELD IN PARA 20 TO 25 AS UNDER:- 20. THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IS WHE THER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH D ECEMBER, 2002 CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A DATE ON WHICH THE PROPE RTY I.E. THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. IN NORMAL C IRCUMSTANCES BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF AN IMM OVABLE 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 S AID PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR TH E RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED, HAS A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFO RCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, IF THE VENDOR, FOR SO ME REASON IS NOT EXECUTING THE SALE DEED. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SOME RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE VENDOR TO THE VENDE E. 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 A NSWERED IN THE ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 14 NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES THE WORD 'TRANSFER' IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, ONE CAN SAY THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTI NGUISHED BY EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSE T CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. RELEVANT PORTION OF SECTI ON 2(47), DEFINING THE WORD 'TRANSFER' IS AS UNDER: '2(47) 'TRANSFER', IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES,- (I)** ** ** (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR. . . . . . . . . . . . .' 21. NOW IN THE LIGHT OF DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER' AS DE FINED 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 SOMEONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL A SSET. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED DEFINITION, LET US LOOK AT THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF A CAP ITAL ASSET HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002 FOR TRANSFERRI NG THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/ORIGINAL ASSET IN QUESTION AND A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED BE CAUSE OF PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN SHRI RANJEET LAL ON ONE HAND AND THE APPELLANTS ON THE OTHER AS SHRI RANJEET LAL HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL UNDER WHICH THE PROPERTY H AD DEVOLVED UPON THE APPELLANTS. BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER PASSED IN THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJEET LAL, THE APPELLANTS WERE RESTRAINED FROM DE ALING WITH THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN CA NNOT BE EXPECTED TO VIOLATE THE DIRECTION OF A COURT BY EXECUTING A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF A THIRD PARTY WHILE BEING RESTRAINED FROM DOING SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR A JUSTIFIABLE REASON, WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANTS, THEY COULD NOT EXECUTE T HE SALE DEED AND THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN REGISTERED ONLY ON 24TH SEPT EMBER, 2004, AFTER THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJEET LAL, CHALLENGI NG THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL, HAD BEEN DISMISSED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE STATED FACTS AND IN ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 15 VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'TRANSFER', ONE CAN COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SOME RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITA L ASSET IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND TH EREFORE, SOME RIGHT WHICH THE APPELLANTS HAD, IN RESPECT OF THE C APITAL ASSET IN QUESTION, HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BECAUSE AFTER EXECU TION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. A RIGHT IN PERSONAM HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND WHO HAD ALSO PAID RS.15 LAKHS BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. NO DOUBT, SUCH CONTRACTUAL RIGHT CAN BE SURRENDERED OR NEUTRALIZED BY THE PARTIES THROUGH SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT OR CONDUCT LEADING TO N O TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED VENDEE BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT HAND. 22. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE TERM 'TRANSFER' H AS BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, EVEN IF LOOKED AT T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHICH GIVES RELIEF TO A PERSO N WHO HAS TRANSFERRED HIS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND IS PURCHA SING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE EITHER BEFORE ONE YEAR OF THE TRA NSFER OR EVEN TWO YEARS AFTER THE TRANSFER, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGI SLATURE IS TO GIVE HIM RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IF A PERSON, WHO GETS SOME EXCESS AMOUNT UPON TRANSFER OF HIS OLD RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND THEREAFTER PURCHAS ES OR CONSTRUCTS A NEW PREMISES WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER SECTI ON 54 OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT WANT HIM TO BE BURDEN ED WITH TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE, RELIEF HA S BEEN GIVEN TO HIM IN RESPECT OF PAYING INCOME TAX ON THE LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PURPOSE WIT H WHICH THE SAID PROVISION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ACT, IS ALSO VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME RELIEF. THOUGH IT HAS BEEN VERY OFTEN SAID THAT COMMON SENSE IS A STRANGER AND AN I NCOMPATIBLE PARTNER TO THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IT IS ALSO SAID T HAT EQUITY AND TAX ARE STRANGERS TO EACH OTHER, STILL THIS COURT HAS O FTEN OBSERVED THAT PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 16 ACT. IN THE CASE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS V. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 658/115 TAXMAN 69 THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT A PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOULD BE GIVEN WHILE CONSIDERING A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAX. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SAID THAT HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS WHIC H SUBSERVE THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE WHILE CONSTR UING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN ON E IS CONCERNED WITH EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX. CONSIDERING THE AFORESTATED OBSERVATIONS AND THE PRINCIPLES WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE TAX LAWS, ONE CAN VERY WE LL INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 READ WITH SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, I.E. DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER', WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE AP PELLANTS TO GET THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 23. CONSEQUENCES OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL ARE ALSO VERY CLEAR AND THEY ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPE LLANTS COULD NOT HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE. IN PRACTICA L LIFE, THERE ARE EVENTS WHEN A PERSON, EVEN AFTER EXECUTING AN AGREE MENT TO SELL AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, TRIES T O SELL THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH AN ACT WO ULD NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BECAUSE ONCE AN AGREEMENT TO SE LL IS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, THE SAID PERSON GETS A RIG HT TO GET THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN HIS FAVOUR BY FILING A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THEREFORE, WITHOUT HESITATION WE CA N SAY THAT SOME RIGHT, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY, BELONG ING TO THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED AND SOME RIGHT HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE, WHEN THE AGREEM ENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED. 24. THUS, A RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, VIZ . THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANTS IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002. THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN PREVENTED FROM DEALING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE B Y AN ORDER OF A COMPETENT COURT, WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE VIOLATED . ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 17 25. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESTATED PECULIAR FACTS OF THE C ASE AND LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'TRANSFER' AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEL LANTS WERE ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH THEY HAD EARNED IN PURSUANC E OF TRANSFER OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEING HOUSE NO. 267, SEC TOR 9-C, SITUATED IN CHANDIGARH AND USED FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW ASSET/ RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THUS, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THA T WHEN AGREEMENT TO SALE IN RESPECT OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY IS EXECUT ED A RIGHT IN PERSONAE IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND THE REBY THE VENDOR IS RESTRAIN FROM SELLING THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE GETS THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC PERFO RMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT WE HO LD THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WOULD BE REGARDED AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE ARE SET ASIDE. 8. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND ADOPTED THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF RS. 3.16 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2011-12 AND RS. ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 18 2,62,01,662/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ON A PPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED THE MATTER OF VALUATION TO THE DVO U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE ON T HE DATE OF SALE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VAL UER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS MUCH LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. THE DVO, HOWEVER DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT THE VALUE AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY FOR REGISTRATION OF SALE D EEDS. CONSEQUENTLY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT BOTH THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND DVO HAVE CONSIDERED THE LAND AS M EANT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND ACCORDINGLY APPLIED THE RATE OF RS. 2,000/- AND 2300 PER SQ. MT. RESPECTIVELY. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT AS PER CLAUSE-3 OF THE LEASE DEED ISSUED BY JDA, THE LAND CAN BE USED ONLY FOR FARM HOUSE AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. FURTHER, AS PER CLAUSE 4 OF THE LEASE DEED THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 04.10.2002 & 21.07.2003 WHEREBY THE MINIMUM SIZE OF FARM HOUSE I S SPECIFIED TO BE 3000 SQ. MT. AND PERMITTED BUILT UP AREA AT 5% AND THEREFORE, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE DVO IS APPARENTLY INCORRECT WH EN THE LAND IN ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 19 QUESTION IS PERMITTED ONLY FOR FARM HOUSE PURPOSE. THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON THE MINIMUM SIZE OF FARM HOUSE AS WELL AS BUILT UP AREA WHICH IS ONLY 5%. THE LD. AR HAS THEN REFERRED TO THE LETTER DATED 14.07.2014 OF COLLECTOR OF STAMP WHEREIN IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT TH E LAND IS MEANT FOR FARM HOUSE. IN THE MEANT TIME THE GOVERNMENT ISSUE NOTIFICATION OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND FOR THE ROAD PURPOSE AND TH EREFORE, AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS UNDER THE PROCE SS OF THE ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IS AFFECT BY THE ACQUISITION NOTIFICATION AND WILL BE LESS THAN THE NORMAL RATES OF THE LAND. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE CIRC ULAR NO. 3385 DATED 14.07.2014 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS CL ARIFIED DLC RATE APPLICATION ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND USED FOR FARM HOUSES HOWEVER, THE DVO HAS DENIED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID CIRCUL AR AS IT IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SALE. HENCE, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND BY CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTORS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E DVO DETERMINED THE VALUATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJE CTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED V ALUER SUBMITTED BY THE ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 20 ASSESSEE. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED AND THEREFORE, THE CIRCULA R DATED 14.07.2014 WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SALE DEED AND CONS EQUENTLY IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS RELI ED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE STAMP DUTY AUT HORITY HAS ADOPTED THE RATES AS PROVIDED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE WHERE AS UNDISPUTEDLY THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ALLOWED ONLY FOR FARM HOUSE PU RPOSE. AS PER THE ORDERS OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE FARM HOUSE LAND CANNOT EXCEED MORE THAN 5%, THEREFORE, ALL THE SE FACTS ARE RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS P ER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS UNDER AC QUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THIS ITSELF IS A VERY RELEVANT FACTO R TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE FA IR MARKET VALUE. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN BIFURCATED INTO TWO PARTS AS A RO AD HAS BEEN CARVED OUT PASSING THROUGH THE PROPERTY AFTER ACQUISITION OF THE LAND. THE DVO HAS ADOPTED THE DLC RATE AS APPLIED BY THE STAMP DU TY AUTHORITY ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 21 WITHOUT CARRIED OUT ANY EXERCISE OF THE DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. IT IS PERTINENT TO N OTE THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS FACTORS WHICH EFFECT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN QUESTION INCLUDING THE LAND USE, THE RESTRICTION OF BUILT UP AREA, SUBSEQUENT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBING THE R ATES FOR THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE FARM HOUSE AS PER THE SIZE OF THE FARM HOUSE BUT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY DVO. THEREFOR E, THESE ASPECTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE D ETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. WE FIND THAT THE DVO HAS NOT GIVEN A DUE WAITAGE TO THESE FACTORS WHILE DETERMIN ING THE VALUATION, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY , IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE T O THE RECORD OF THE AO/DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS SUCH AS THE LAND USE, RESTRICTION OF BUILT UP AREA, THE CIRCULAR DATED 14.07.2014 SPECIFYING AS PER RATES F OR THE FARM HOUSE LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AREA OF THE LAND AND AC QUISITION BY GOVERNMENT. THE CIRCULAR DATED 14.07.2014 IS A USEF UL AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. NEE DLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE DECIDING THIS ISSUE. ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 22 12. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE AO WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS ALLOWED THE COST OF PURCHASE AT RS. 47,42,800/- AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 20,000/- AGGREGATING TO RS. 47,62,800/- AS AGAINST RS. 56,70 ,055/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF COST O F IMPROVEMENT ON THE GROUND THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE LEDGER ACCOU NT IT IS FOUND THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000/- WAS INCURRED AFTER A CQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY VIDE SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010. THUS, TH E AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS INCURRED PRIOR TO THE SAL E DEED AND AFTER THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 13. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AR AS WELL AS DR AND CONSIDER ED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE, THIS ISSUE OF DATE OF AC QUISITION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE LAND VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007 A ND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE LAND A FTER THE SAID DATE OF ACQUISITION IS AN ALLOWABLE CLAIM AS PER SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EVEN OTHERWISE IF AN EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE LAND AFTER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007 AND PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010 THE FAC T REMAINS THAT THE ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 23 EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED CANNOT BE DISALLOWED WHEN THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE SAL E DEED WAS ACCEPTED AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED IS ALSO ALLOWABLE CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. GROUND NO. 4, AT THE TIME HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT PRESS GROUND NO. 4 AND THE SAME MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. DR HAS RAISED NO OBJECTION IF GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESS EES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 15. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TAKING THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF LAND AS 13.04.2010 AS AGAINST THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LA ND OF 11.04.2007 WHEN THE LAND WAS PURCHASED AND THE POSS ESSION WAS RECEIVED IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT TO SALE OF EVEN DATE AND THEREBY, ASSESSING THE GAIN ON SALE OF THE LAND AS SHORT TER M CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN A DOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND U/S 50C AT RS. 2,62, 01,662/- ON THE ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 24 BASIS OF THE REPORT OF DVO WHICH IS BASED ON THE VA LUE DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND NOT THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS REQUIRED U/S 50C(2). HE HAS FURTHER ERR ED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND ALSO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND THEREBY, UP HOLDING THE CAPITAL GAIN DETERMINED BY THE AO AT RS. 2,20,38,18 3/-. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN H OLDING THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSE IS A CAPITAL ASSET BY NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. 9447 DT. 0 6.01.1994. 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVE TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY AN Y OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THIS ISSUE IS COMMON AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011- 12. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 THE SAME STANDS ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. 17. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE FAIR MARKET VALU E DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COMMON TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUN D NO. 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE, THIS ISSUE STANDS ADJUDICATED IN TERMS OF OUR FINDINGS A ND ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF AO/DVO. ITA NO. 680 &681/JP/2017 M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO 25 18. GROUND NO. 3, AT THE TIME HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT PRESS GROUND NO. 3 AND THE SAME MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. DR HAS RAISED NO OBJECTION IF GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESS EES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/01/2018 SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN FOT; IKY JKO (BHAGCHAND) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25/01/2018. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD., JA IPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 680 & 681/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR