SHRI RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 70/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0001 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Competent authority; Reason to believe
• Section: 50C; 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HE A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 70/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 SH. RAVI PUROHIT, 32, VISHVESARIYA NAGAR EXT. GOPALPURA BY PASS JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGXPP3729Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDAR MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 30/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/04/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR DATED 18.12.2017 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1.1 THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147/143(3) DATED 16.03. 2016 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICT ION, BARRED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KI NDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON F ACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2.1 RS. 14,02,900/-: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERR ED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,02,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE. THUS BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITY WRONGLY TAKEN THE LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN AT RS. 16,12,749/- AS AGAINST RS. 2,09,849/-. HENCE THE AD DITION SO MADE BY ITA NO. 70/JP/2018 SH. RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 2 THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BEING TOT ALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2.2: THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE GROS SLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN TAKING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF STAMP AUTHORITY AT RS. 31,52,900/- (1/2 SHARE) WHICH WAS COMMERCIAL VALUE AS AGAINST ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 17,50,000/ - (1/2 SHARE) RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RESIDENTIAL AS PROPERTY A S RESIDENTIAL. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2.3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING IGNORING ALL THE MATERIAL OR EVI DENCES WHICH WERE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF REVENUE AS WELL AS BEFOR E HER. WHICH IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE, HENCE ALL THE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3. THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A B & C. THE APPEL LANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INT EREST, SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KI NDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING NO. 5, RAM BARI, JALORI GATE, JODHPUR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 35,00,000/- ALONG WITH HIS FAT HER SH. RAMAN LAL. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED BY THE SUB- REGISTRAR AT DL C RATE OF 35,00,000/- ON 13.07.2007 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ENHANCED TO RS. 6 3,05,800/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED PURSUANT TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,09,84 9/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE SALE CONS IDERATION AT RS. 17,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 31,52,900/- AS PER THE E NHANCED DLC VALUE BY THE ITA NO. 70/JP/2018 SH. RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 3 SUB-REGISTRAR. AFTER GIVING A SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASS ESSEE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TAKEN BY THE AO AT RS. 31,52,900/ - INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT AND AFTER GIVING BENEFIT OF COST OF ACQUISITION AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 16,12,749/- AS AGAINST RS. 2,09,849/- WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE I N HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS SUSTAINED THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THE SAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WERE WRONG, INCORRECT AND WITHOU T MATERIAL AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR RS. 63,05,800 AS ALLE GED IN THE REASONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR RS. 35,00,000/- AND HIS SHARE COMES TO RS. 17,50,000/-. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT STATED UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS OR UNDER WHAT HEAD, THE INCO ME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ISS UED NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION AND SAID INFORMATION IS BO RROWED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 EXCEPT WRONG INFORMATION AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY OR COLLECTED ANY MATERIAL THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS RECEIVED OWN MONEY OR MORE CONSIDERATION THAN WHAT HAS BEEN MENT IONED IN THE SALE DEED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUAN CE OF THE NOTICE, THERE WAS NO SALE DEED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE WAS ONLY ON AIR INFORMATION AND THE SAME CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS FOR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE VARIOUS COURT DECISIONS AS WELL AS DE CISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN CASE OF ITO VS. SHIV SHAKTI BUILD HOME ( P) LTD. (2011) 141 TTJ ITA NO. 70/JP/2018 SH. RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 4 0123(JODH), ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 268/JP/2015 DATED 08.09.2016 AND SH. JAGDISH CHANDRA BORIWAL IN ITA N O. 216/JD/2017 DATED 01.08.2017. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE V ERY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THEREF ORE, RESULTANT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BE QUASHED. 5. ON MERITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SH. RAMAN LAL, THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH TH E ASSESSEE HAD JOINTLY PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY ON 10.10.2002 FOR A CON SIDERATION OF RS. 10,00,000/-. THEREAFTER, THEY HAVE CARRIED OUT THE RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION ON THE SAID PROPERTY WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE C ONSISTING OF BASEMENT, GROUND FLOOR, FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR. THEREAF TER, THEY HAVE JOINTLY SOLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON 3.07.2017 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 35,00,000/- AS PER THE SALE DEED AND THUS THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 17,50,000/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 2,09,849/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHI CH CAN ARISE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION IN THE HANDS OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI RAMAN LAL WHO IS T HE CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND GIVEN THAT, NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH IN CASE OF SMT. SURENDRA KAUR VS. AO IN ITA NO. 547/JP/2017 DATED 2 9.09.2017. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION IN EXCESS OF WHAT HAS BE EN STATED IN THE SALE DEED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY UNDER CO NSIDERATION WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS F ATHER HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY D ISPUTE REGARDING THE SAME. ITA NO. 70/JP/2018 SH. RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 5 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUB-REGISTRAR HAS REVALUE D THE PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL AND ENHANCED THE DLC VALUE AFTER REGISTR ATION OF SALE DEED ON ITS OWN WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS NOT BEEN DENIED, ONLY DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY BEING NEAR A COMMERCIAL AREA, THE NATURE OF PROPERT Y CANNOT BE CHANGED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE STAMP AUTHORITY OR AO HAS NO WHERE STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS COMMERCIAL. THE STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PA ID BY THE PURCHASER AND IF THE PURCHASER HAS PAID EXCESS STAMP DUTY AND NOT DISPUTED BY HIM, THE SAME DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY HA S CHANGED OR ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ENHANCED DLC VALUE SO ADOPTED BY THE S UB-REGISTRAR BEFORE THE AO, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS WERE NOT AC CEPTED BY THE AO AND THE LATTER AUTOMATICALLY APPLIED THE ENHANCED DLC VALUE . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A REGISTERED VALUAT ION REPORT DATED 18.06.2005 IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT WHEREIN THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SHOWN AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED THE SAID VALUATION REPORT OR HAS BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE REPORT OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE SAME. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE AO CONSIDERED THE SAID VALUATION REPORT FOR THE PURPOS E OF DETERMINATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT. IT WAS ACCORDI NGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN ON THE SALE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY TAK EN BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF LOCATION OF THE PROP ERTY NEAR A COMMERCIAL AREA. EXCEPT THIS NO OTHER BASIS HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE AO AND HE NOWHERE STATED THAT WHERE IN THE ACT IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED T HAT THE LTCG HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF COMMERCIAL AREAS OF THE LAN D IN QUESTION. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PO SITION THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE REVENUE RECORD AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THEN IT CANNOT BE CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND NO EXCESS CAPITA L GAINS CAN BE CHARGED. ITA NO. 70/JP/2018 SH. RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 6 IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO SHOULD BE DELETED. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE AO, ON THE BASIS OF TANGIBLE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A HOUSE PROPERTY AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 AFTER SEEKING THE REQUISITE APPROVAL. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE O F INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, T HERE IS NO BASIS IN THE CONTENTION SO ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR CHALLENGING TH E LEGALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 7. ON MERITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT DR TH AT VALUATION HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR AT RS. 63,05,800/- AND IN THAT CASE, THE AO HAS NO OPTION BUT TO INVOKE THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND TO ADOPT THE SAID VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUT ATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS T O WHY THIS ENHANCED DLV VALUE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 50C OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NATUR E OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND THE SUB- REGISTRAR IS NOT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR THE SAME AND CLARIFICATION HAS BEEN SOUGHT FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, HOWEVER, NO SUCH CLARIFICATI ON WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, ON THE LEGALITY OF THE PROCEED INGS INITIATED BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITA NO. 70/JP/2018 SH. RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 7 HIS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE SUBJECT TRANSAC TION AND DECLARING CAPITAL GAINS THEREON AND THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FIL ED PURSUANT TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IT IS THUS A CASE OF AS SESSMENT AND NOT A CASE OF REASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, THE TRA NSACTION OF SALE OF PROPERTY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A JOINT OWNER ALONG HIS FATHE R IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASONS SO RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE AO THUS HAS A TANGIBLE INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY AND THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING THEREFROM HAS NOT BEEN DECLAR ED GIVEN THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED EARLIER. ONCE THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF PROPERTY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IS NOT DISPUTED, THE EXACT QUANT UM OF CAPITAL GAINS IS A MATTER OF COMPUTATION AND EXAMINATION DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS THUS A CLEAR CASE OF INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSME NT AND WE DONOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WHEREIN THE CAPITAL GAINS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 9. ON MERITS, THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATIO N IS ADOPTION OF ENHANCED DLC VALUE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT DR HAS CONTENDED THAT VALUATION HAS BEEN ADO PTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR AT RS. 63,05,800/- AND IN THAT CASE, THE AO HAS NO OPTION BUT TO INVOKE THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND TO ADOPT THE SAID VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR IS THAT THE ENHANCED DLC VALUE HAS BEEN D ETERMINED BY THE SUB- REGISTRAR AND ACCEPTED BY THE PURCHASER AND THE ASS ESSEE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SAME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTE D THE ADOPTION OF ENHANCED DLC VALUE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE SAME HAS BEEN DONE BY CONSIDERING THE PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL WHEREAS T HE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITA NO. 70/JP/2018 SH. RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 8 EVIDENCED BY THE SALE DEED AND MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF ITS LOCATION CLOSE TO A COMMERCIAL AREA, THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE CHANGED. IN OUR VIEW, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE ADOPTION OF ENH ANCED DLC VALUE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE POSIT ION IN LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT IN SUCH CASES, THE AO SHOULD REFER THE MATTER OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DVO AND THE LATTER SHALL CONSIDER THE CONTEN TIONS/OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE VALUATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE AO AND E VEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, SUCH REFERENCE TO DVO HAS NOT BEEN MAD E. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, THE MATTER IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHO S HALL CALL FOR THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, DETERMINE THE S ALE CONSIDERATION WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/04/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02/04/2019 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAVI PUROHIT, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 5(1), 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. 70/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR