ARUN LASHKARY, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 759/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5598 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Salary income; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 37

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI ARUN LASHKARY 52-53, CHAURA RASTA JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABVPL 0192 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI VIJAY GOYAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDL CIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/02/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/02/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 16-06-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 RA ISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL. UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 6,05,980/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHOR T TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 50C OF I.T. ACT, 1961 BY CONSIDERI NG THE VALUE ADOPTED BY SUB-REGISTRAR AT RS. 15,85,980/- M ORE SO WHEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 2 IS IN EXCESS TO FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY A ND THE AO HAS NOT COMPLIED THE PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 50C OF I.T. ACT. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND ALONGWITH CASE LAWS IN RELATION TO THE PRESENT CASE PLACED BEFORE THIS BENCH. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN APPLYING THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF I.T. ACT,1961 ON THE SALE OF RESERVA TION LETTER (ARAKSHAN PATRA) WHICH IS NEITHER LAND NOR BUILDING BUT IT IS A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND. (I) NTPC LTD. VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) (II) ZAKIR HUSSAIN VS. CIT & ANR (2006) 202 CTR 40 RAJ. (III) SIKSHA VS. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 112 (ORISSA) (IV) WEST BENGAL ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. DCIT (2005) 278 ITR 218 (CAL.) (V) ORISSA CEMENT LTD. VS. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 856 (DEL.) (VI) AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 351 (BOM F.B.) (VII) ANAND SHANKAR MITTAL VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 778 & 779/JP/2009 DATED 8 TH JAN. 2010 ITAT JAIPUR BENCH 43 TW 1) (VIII) CHOUDHARY & BROS VS. ITO (ITA NO. 583/JP/2009 ORDER DATED 30-09-2010, 135 TTJ 055) ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 3 (IX) M/S. MITTAL GRANITES (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 761, 1016, 762, 107, 1018, 1019 & 1020/JP/2013 ORDER DATED 16-03-2016) 2.2 I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE OF AD DITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT THIS IS A LEGAL GRO UND WHICH IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF N TPC LTD. VS. CIT AND OTHER CASE LAWS (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED. 3.1 APROPOS SOLITARY GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AS EMERGE S FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 3.2 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALS O TAKEN A NOTE OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL AS APPLI CABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. GROUND NO. 2 COVERED IN THE SUBMI SSION MADE FOR GROUND NO. 1. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORD ER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS HELD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESS EE SOLD LAND SITUATED AT SEZ, BAGRU OF 463 SQ. MTR FOR TOTA L CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,80,000/- AS AGAINST THIS THE DLC VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR FOR SUCH LAND WAS RS. 15,85,980/-.FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION I N CERTAIN CASES. 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOP TED OR ASSESSED SHALL, ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 4 FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER ... THEREFORE, AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT INSERTED B Y THE FINANCE ACT 2002-, WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECE IVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF LAND AND/OR BUILDING IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSAB LE BY AN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOT, THEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I D O NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERVENE ACCORDINGLY ASSESS EE'S APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION PRAYING THEREIN TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,05,980/-CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SUBMISSION ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER: - THE FINDING OF THE LD. AO IS AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE LD. AO HELD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TH E ASSESSEE SOLD LAND SITUATED AT SEZ, BAGRU OF 463 SQ. METER FOR TOTAL C ONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,80,000/- AS AGAINST THIS THE DLC VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR FOR SUCH LAND WAS RS. 15,85,980/-. IN VIEW OF SUCH FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO ADOPTED SUCH DLC VALUE OF RS. 15,85,980/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING T HE CAPITAL GAIN. THUS THE LD. AO BY REJECTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE APPL IED THE PROVISIONS OF 50C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN B Y TAKING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RS. 15,85,980/- AS AGAINST RS. 9,80,0 00/- TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTED ADDITION OF RS. 6,05,980/- IN TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A) THE FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A) ARE AT PG 4-5 OF HIS ORDE R. HE CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF LD AO. ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 5 SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE: - 1. ADDITIONAL GROUND:- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE S OLD ARAKSHAN PATRA WHICH IS RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE ALLOTMENT OF L AND MEASURING 463 SQ. MTS FOR RS. 9,80,000/-. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND IN PARTS TO VARIOUS PARTIES DETAIL OF WHICH IS AS UNDER: - NAME OF PARTY DATE OF SALES AREA (IN SQ. MTS) SALES VALUE VALUE ADOPTED BY SUB REGISTRAR AMIT AGARWAL 09.07.2010 68 1,60,000 2,60,260 SUMIT AGARWAL 09.07.2010 91 1,60,000 2,96,940 CHETANAYA PRAKASH GOYAL 09.07.2010 68 1,60,000 2,60,260 BHAWANA AGARWAL 09.07.2010 118 2,50,000 3,84,260 SUMAN AGARWAL 09.07.2010 118 2,50,000 3,84,260 TOTAL 463 9,80,000 15,85,980 AT THE OUTSET WE SUBMIT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E HAS SOLD RESERVATION LETTER (ARAKSHAN PATRA). THE ARAKSHAN P ATRA IS A RIGHT TO RECEIVE 20% RESIDENTIAL LAND AND 5% COMMERCIAL LAND IN LIEU OF THE LAND ACQUIRED BY JDA FOR SEZ. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D THESE RIGHTS FROM SHRI REKHA RAM ON 25/09/09 (COPY OF PURCHASE D EED IS AT PB PG 18-25 FOR RS. 625000/- . THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS MENTIONED AT PB PG 19. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THESE RIGHTS BY EXECUTING DIFFER ENT SALE DEEDS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI AMIT AGARWAL (PB PG 26-31), SHRI SUMIT AGARWAL (PB PG 32-37) , CHAITANYA PRAKASH GOYAL (PB PG 38-43), SMT BHAVANA AGARWAL (PB PG 44-49) , AND SMT SUMAN AGARWAL (PB PG 50- 55) FOR TOTALING TO RS. 9,80,000/-. FROM THE READING O F SECTION 50C, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PROVISION AND IT EXTENDS ONLY TO LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. SECTION 50C CAN COME I NTO PLAY ONLY IN A SITUATION WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRU ING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN APPELLANT OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT DEEMING PROVISION CA N BE APPLIED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE SITUATION SPECIFICALLY GIVEN AND, HE NCE, CANNOT GO BEYOND THE EXPLICIT MANDATE OF THE SECTION. CLEARLY, THERE FORE, IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C THAT THE TRANSFER MUST B E OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. IF THE CAPITAL ASSE T UNDER TRANSFER CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, THEN SE CTION 50C WILL CEASE TO APPLY. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE SOLD ARAKSHAN PATRA WHICH IS RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE 20% RESIDENTIAL LAND AND 5% COMMERCIAL ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 6 LAND. THESE ARAKASHAN PATRA CANNOT BE TERMS AS LAN D OR BUILDING THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CANNOT BE A PPLIED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION:- (I) ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH:- SMT. DEVINDRABEN I. BAR OT VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2) , AHMEDABAD 2016 (7) TMI 275 ITAT AHMEDABAD ITA. NO: 2220/AHD/2012 DATED: 06 MAY 2016 (COPY OF DECISION IS ENCLOSED) (II) ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH:- ITO VS SHRI YASIN MOOSA GODIL ITA NO 2519/AHD/2009 ORDER DATED 13/04/2012 (III) ITAT MUMBAI BENCH:-ATUL G PURANIL VS ITO (201 1) 132 ITD 0499 (IV) ITAT MUMBAI:-FARID GULMOHAMED VS. INCOME TAX O FFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) ITAT, BOMBAY TRIBUNAL (F) ITA NO. 5136/MUM/2014 16TH MARCH, 2016 (2016) 46 CCH 0300 M UM TRIB V) ITAT PUNE BENCH:- KANCAST (P) LTD VS ITO (2015) 68 SOT 0110 (PUNE) (VI) ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH :- ITO VS HARI OM GUPTA (2016) 4 5 ITR TRIB) 0137 (LUCKNOW) (VII) ITAT KOLKATA BENCH:- DCIT VS TEJINDER SINGH ITA NO 1459/KOL/2011 ORDER DATED 29/02/2012 2. GROUND NO 1 OF FORM NO 36 WE SUBMIT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REG ISTRAR AUTHORITIES IS IN EXCESS TO FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. HOW EVER THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRAR AUTHORITIES WAS TAKE N AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. THE L D. AO DID NOT COMPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION (2) OF SECTION 5 0C, WHICH SAY THAT THE AO SHOULD REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL AS SET TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ACCEPT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACC EPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND THE ACTUA L SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED WAS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE THE LD. AO IS WRONG IN APPL YING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT COMP LYING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION. ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 7 IN VIEW OF ABOVE YOUR HONOR IS REQUESTED KINDLY TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A) 3.3 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. 3.4 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN O F INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 5,08,910/- ON 26-09-2011. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 07-03-2014 ON A TOTAL INCO ME OF RS. 11,14,890/- BY INCREASING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY RS. 6, 05,980/- AS AGAINST THE DECLARED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,43,425/- ON A/C OF DIFFERENCE OF SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED TO ASSESSEE AND VALUE ADOPTED BY REGISTRAR AUTHORITIES BY APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50 C OF I.T. ACT, 1961. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTI ON OF THE AO. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE ARAKSHNA PATRA HAVING RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND MEASURE G 463 SQ. MTR FOR RS. 9,80,000/-. THE ASSES SEE SOLD THESE LANDS IN PARTS TO VARIOUS PERSONS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 8 NAME OF PARTY DATE OF SALES AREA (IN SQ. MTS) SALES VALUE VALUE ADOPTED BY SUB REGISTRAR AMIT AGARWAL 09.07.2010 68 1,60,000 2,60,260 SUMIT AGARWAL 09.07.2010 91 1,60,000 2,96,940 CHETANAYA PRAKASH GOYAL 09.07.2010 68 1,60,000 2,60,260 BHAWANA AGARWAL 09.07.2010 118 2,50,000 3,84,260 SUMAN AGARWAL 09.07.2010 118 2,50,000 3,84,260 TOTAL 463 9,80,000 15,85,980 IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ARAKSHAN PATRA IS A RI GHT TO RECEIVE 20% RESIDENTIAL LAND AND 5% COMMERCIAL LAND IN VIEW OF THE LAND ACQUIRED BY JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR SEZ. IT IS NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THESE RIGHTS FROM SHRI REKHA RAM ON 25-09 -2009 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED FOR RS. 6, 25,000/- AT PAGE 18-25 OF ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THESE RIGHT S BY EXECUTING DIFFERENT SALE DEEDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FIVE PERSONS TOTALING TO RS. 9.80 LACS. IT WILL BE WORTH WHILE TO MENTION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT WHETHER T HE ASSESSEES CASE IS COVERED UNDER THIS SECTION OR NOT. [ SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION I N CERTAIN CASES. 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILD ING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOV ERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT 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 CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1), WHERE ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 9 ( A ) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRAN SFER; ( B ) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VA LUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY O THER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS M ADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION1 6A, CLAUSE ( I ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SU B-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEAL TH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY I N RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, VALUATION OFFICE R SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE ( R ) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB -SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKE N AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T HE TRANSFER.] THE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 50C SHOWS THAT THIS PR OVISION IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE CAPITAL ASSETS BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, IT IS NOTED THAT IN ASSESSEE'S CASE CAPITAL ASSETS ARE NEITHER LAND NOR BUILDING. HENCE, IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DELIBERATIONS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 759/JP/2016 SHRI ARUN LASKARY VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,JAIPU R . 10 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 -02-2017. SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 10/02/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ARUN LASHKARY, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIPU R 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.759/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR