Mukund Bajirao Kote (HUF), Ahmednagar V. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

ITA 899/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1580 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 2(14); 142(1); 148; 144; 15

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE ! ' , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM ITA NO.899/PN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MUKUND BAJIRAO KOTE (HUF), PIMPALWADI ROAD, SHIRDI, DIST.- AHMEDNAGAR. PAN: AAKHM3668L .. APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR. ... RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 02.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.07.2016 % / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, PUNE DATED 24.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RE CORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED ANCESTRAL PROPERTY FROM HIS MOTHER SMT . MANKARNIKABAI BAJIRAO KOTE COMPRISING IN SURVEY NO.5/25, 5/24 AND 5/23 AT VILL AGE- MAUJE SHIRDI, TALUKA- RAHATE, DISTRICT- AHMEDNAGAR. THE MOTHER OF THE AS SESSEE HAD DIED INTESTATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AFORESAID PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY SHA RED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH 2 ITA NO.899/PN/2013 HIS TWO BROTHERS NAMELY SHRI PRAKASH BAJIRAO KOTE A ND SHRI DILIP BAJIRAO KOTE. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHERS SOLD THE AFOREMENT IONED PROPERTY VIDE TWO SEPARATE SALE DEEDS. THE FIRST SALE DEED DATED 25. 09.2007 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY COMPRISING IN S. NO.5/25, 5/24 & 5/23 IS FOR SALE C ONSIDERATION OF RS.1,30,00,000/- AND THE SECOND SALE DEED DATED 10.11.2007 IS IN RES PECT OF LAND MEASURING 00.59 HECTARE + POT KHARABA HECTARE 00.09 R IN S. NO.5/25 AND 00.37 HECTARE + POT KHARABA HECTARE 00.08 R IN S. NO.5/24 FOR SALE CONS IDERATION OF RS.1,44,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE THE GAIN ARISING ON SA LE OF AFORESAID PROPERTY IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE ON 05.01.2011 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 08.01.2011 . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U NDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, SEVERAL NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) WE RE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND TO THOSE NOTICES. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. SINCE IN THE SALE DEED DATED 25.09.2007 THE SALE CO NSIDERATION WAS LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MA TTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) FOR DETERMINING ITS FAIR MA RKET VALUE. THE DVO VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.04.2011 DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF LAND AT RS.1,74,96,000/- AS AGAINST THE STAMP VALUE OF RS.1 ,80,99,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2011 DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AT RS.1,34,84,300/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PR EFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDIN GS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASS ESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 3 ITA NO.899/PN/2013 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,84,298/- ON THE ANALOGY THAT T HE SAID INCOME IS TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN OF THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I OUGHT T O HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE LAND SITUATED AT S. NO. 5/25, 5/24 & 5/23 IN SHIRDI IS N OT A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ITA, 1961. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A)-I, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE CO NSIDERATION FOR SALE OF THE SAID LAND IS INCORRECTLY TAKEN / ASSUMED BY THE LEARNED AO AS THE SAID LAND WAS HAVING RESTRICTIONS (RESERVATION). 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE, THE LEA RNED CLT(A)-I, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE VA LUE OF THE SAID LAND ON 1/4/1981, I.E. COST OF ACQUISITION; WAS TAKEN / ASSUMED INCOR RECTLY BY THE AO. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD / MODIFY / ALT ER / DELETE ALL / ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) & THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 50C OF ITA, 1961, THOUGH THE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF LAND AT SHIRDI, ARISING FROM THE TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS WA S RS. 2,74,00,000 (I.E. RS. 1,30,00,000 + RS. 1,44,00,000) AS AGAINST STAMP DUT Y VALUE OF RS. 2,22,99,000 (RS. 1,80,99,000 + RS. 42,00,0000) AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE-DEEDS. SECTION 50-C OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN INVOKED WHEN THE TOTAL CONSI DERATION FOR THE SALE OF TWO LANDS WAS FAR MORE THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE SAID TOTAL LANDS. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING & THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RAISING THE INCOME-TAX DEMAND ON THE APPELLANT HUF FOR THE SALE OF LAND AT SHIRDI, DISREGARDING THE FACT ( EMERGING FROM THE AVAILABLE REVENUE RECORDS) THAT THE SAID LAND WAS INDIVIDUAL LAND AND NOT HUF LAND. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD / DELETE / AME ND / MODIFY ALL / ANY OF THE GROUNDS. 4. SHRI KISHOR PHADKE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.1 RAISED I N THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D TWO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BOTH THESE GROUNDS WERE NOT RAISED BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, BOTH THESE GROUNDS GO TO THE ROOT OF THE A SSESSMENT AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR CONTENDE D THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION FROM TWO SEPARATE SALE DEEDS ON ACCOU NT OF SALE OF ANCESTRAL LAND 4 ITA NO.899/PN/2013 WAS RS.2,74,00,000/- (I.E. RS.1,30,00,000/- PLUS RS .1,44,00,000/-) AS AGAINST STAMP DUTY VALUE OF RS.2,22,99,000/- (I.E. RS.1,80,99,000 /- PLUS RS.42,00,000/-). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WHERE THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF TWO PARCEL OF LAND IS MORE THAN THE STAMP VALUE OF THE LANDS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHERE THE SALE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN TH E VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION OFFICER. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN TH E NAME OF HUF. THE LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS A KARTA OF HUF. THE LD. AR FURTHER REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 TO EMPHASIZE THAT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS INHERI TED FROM A FEMALE HINDU DYING INTESTATE, THE PROPERTY SHALL DEVOLVE OF SONS, DAUG HTERS AND HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED AND SHALL NOT GO TO HUF. THE LD. AR CONTE NDED THAT THE INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF RIGHT PERSONS. IN SUPP ORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. CH. ATCHAIAH REPORTED AS 218 ITR 239 AND TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AMY COLABA WALA REPORTED AS 243 ITR 19. THE LD. AR TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS THAT ADDITION AL GROUND CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO E NTERTAIN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED HAS BEARING ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, R EFERRED TO THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THER MAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 229 ITR 383. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPLI CATION TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS. THE REASONS GIVEN FOR NON-FILING 5 ITA NO.899/PN/2013 OF THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IN UTTER CONFUSION COULD NOT FILE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE REPRESEN TING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO-OPERATE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE O F MAKING ASSESSMENT WRONGLY IN THE HANDS OF HUF WAS NEVER RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIM E BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRES ENTATIVES OF THE RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD. AR FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE AND THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BO OK. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO-OPERATED DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE LAND WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO BROTHERS AFTE R THEIR MOTHER SMT. MANKARNIKABAI BAJIRAO KOTE DIED INTESTATE IN THE YE AR 1992. THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS SOLD THE INHERITED ANCESTRAL LAND VIDE TWO SEPARATE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED ON 25.09.2007 AND 10.11.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD MADE ADDITION OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND IN THE HANDS OF HUF. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION ALBEIT FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LAND IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL A ND NOT THE HUF. RATHER THE HUF WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF SALE OF LAND. 6 ITA NO.899/PN/2013 8. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.6 RAISED IN THE APPEAL. A PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED DATED 25.09.2007 (TRANSLATED COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD AT PA GE 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK) SHOWS THAT THE PAN NUMBER OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. AGPBK5856H ALONG WITH PAN DETAILS OF THE OTHER TWO BROTHERS (JOINT OWNERS OF LAND) OF TH E ASSESSEE WHO HAD INHERITED THE LAND IS MENTIONED IN THE COLUMN OF SELLERS. WHEREA S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HAND S OF HUF WITH PAN NO.AAKHM3668L. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE LAND INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PUT TO THE HOTCHPOT OF THE HUF. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A TRANSLATED COPY OF THE REVENUE RECORD I.E. DOCUMENT OF RIGHTS (G.N. NO.6) AT PAGE 99 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE MUTATION ENTRY NO.10721 DATED 31.03.1996 SHOWS THAT THE PROP ERTY IN QUESTION IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI DILIP BAJIRAO KOTE, SHRI PRAKAS H BAJIRAO KOTE AND SHRI MUKUND BAJIRAO KOTE (I.E. THE ASSESSEE) WITH SPECIFIC SURV EY NUMBERS AND THE AREAS. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ON RECORD WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY AT ANY STAGE WAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMMON POOL OF HUF BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 04.03.2013 ISSU ED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, AHMEDNAGAR ADDRESSED T O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I, PUNE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN REFERRED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND IN THE HANDS OF SHRI PRAKASH BAJIRAO KOTE (HUF) AND SHRI DILIP BAJIRAO K OTE (HUF). HOWEVER, IT IS STILL ILLUSIVE AS TO HOW THE ADDITION OF LTCG FROM SALE O F LAND IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF HUF WHEN IN THE SALE DEED THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE IN DIVIDUALS ARE MENTIONED AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PUT TO THE HOTCHPOT OF HUF BY ASSESSEE. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF RIGHT PERSON. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. CH. ATCHAIAH (SUPRA) HAS HELD :- 7 ITA NO.899/PN/2013 4. IN OUR OPINION, THE CONTENTION URGED BY DR. GAU RI SHANKAR MERITS ACCEPTANCE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT UNDER THE PR ESENT ACT, THE ITO HAS NO OPTION LIKE THE ONE HE HAD UNDER THE 1922 ACT. HE CAN, AND HE MUST, TAX THE RIGHT PERSON AND THE RIGHT PERSON ALONE. BY 'RIGHT PERSON ', WE MEAN THE PERSON WHO IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED, ACCORDING TO LAW, WITH RESPECT TO A PARTI CULAR INCOME. THE EXPRESSION 'WRONG PERSON' IS OBVIOUSLY USED AS THE OPPOSITE OF THE EXPRESSION 'RIGHT PERSON'. MERELY BECAUSE A WRONG PERSON IS TAXED WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR INCOME, THE AO IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM TAXING THE RIGHT PERSON WITH RESPECT TO THAT INCOME. THIS IS SO IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHICH COURSE IS MORE BENEF ICIAL TO THE REVENUE. IN OUR OPINION, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PRESENT ACT IS QUITE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. SEC. 183 SHOWS THAT WHERE PARLIAMENT I NTENDED TO PROVIDE AN OPTION, IT PROVIDED SO EXPRESSLY. WHERE A PERSON IS TAXED W RONGFULLY, HE IS NO DOUBT ENTITLED TO BE RELIEVED OF IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, BUT TH AT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER ALTOGETHER. THE PERSON LAWFULLY LIABLE TO BE TAXED CAN CLAIM NO IMMUNITY BECAUSE THE AO (ITO) HAS TAXED THE SAID INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ANOTHER P ERSON CONTRARY TO LAW. WE MAY PROCEED TO ELABORATE. 9. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND THE WELL SETTLED LAW, THE ADDITION OF LTCG ARISING FROM SALE OF ANCESTRAL LAND IN HANDS OF PRESENT ASSESSEE IS DELETED. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS A RE-VISIT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE RIGH T PERSON, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE GROUND NO.6 RAISED AS ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN APPEAL AS ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.5 IS WITH REGARD TO INVOKING O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS SOUGHT REPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SALE OF LAND VIDE SALE DEED DATED 25.09.2007. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE VALUE OF LAND FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE IS RS.1,80,99,000/-, WHEREAS THE SALE CONSI DERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS RS.1,30,00,000/-. THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATI ON OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE LAND UNDER SALE AS OF RS.1,74,96, 000/-. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CAN BE INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE T HE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON THE TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE IS LE SS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR 8 ITA NO.899/PN/2013 ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION OFFICER. THUS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 50C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SALE OF LAND VIDE SALE DEED DATED 25.09.2007. THE SALE OF LAND BY TWO DIFFERENT SALE DEEDS DENOTE TWO SEPARATE SALE TRANSACTIONS. THE A SSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C BY AGGREGA TING THE SALE CONSIDERATIONS OF TWO SEPARATE SALE DEEDS ENTERED ON DIFFERENT DATES BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTIES AND THEN CLAIM THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS MOR E THAN THE VALUE OF LAND FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE. THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO DVO FOR DETERMINING THE FAI R MARKET VALUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. 11. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT THE BA R THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.1, ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMIS SED AS NOT PRESSED. 12. THE OTHER GROUNDS (I.E. GROUND NO.2 &3) WERE NO T AGITATED BY THE LD. AR BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # / JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 27 TH JULY, 2016. 9 ITA NO.899/PN/2013 %&'#()!*!+( / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. %, / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE