SHREE DADU INDUSTRIES, BHILAI,DURG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 460/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Dadu Industries appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which arose from an earlier order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was regarding the computation of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of land, where the assessee argued that the transfer occurred in A.Y.2014-15, not A.Y.2015-16 as assessed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The Tribunal examined whether the capital gain should be assessed in the year of agreement to sell, which was in the preceding assessment year, and found merit in the assessee's argument, leading to the modification of the CIT(Appeals) order and restoration of the matter to the A.O. for recalculation based on the correct year and valuation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469791 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vummudi Amarendran, Smt. Rekha Agrawal Vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur, Dharamshibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT, Income tax Officer v. Modipon Ltd., CIT v. Calcutta Export Co., Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., CIT v. Alom Enterprises
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Transfer of Property Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHAL AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VEEKAAS S SHARMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Capital Gains; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 37; 2; 50C; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.460/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Dadu Industries A-002, Amrapali Vanachal City, Near Housing Board, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) PAN : ADGFS0643E .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA Revenue by : Shri Mohal Agrawal, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 2 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee firm is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.08.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 18.12.2017 for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee firm has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in computing capital gain in assessment year 2015-16 whereas the transfer of land as defined u/s 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act took place in A.Y. 2014-15, thus, the addition made on account of capital gain is liable to be deleted as no \"transfer\" that gave rise to capital gain u/s 45 took place in the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in assessing capital gain in the year under consideration when no transfer of asset giving rise to capital gain u/s 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has taken place during the year under consideration inasmuch as the transfer of capital asset has taken place in the immediately preceding A.Y by virtue of explanation 2 to section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and this being a trite law that income assessable in a particular year cannot be brought to tax in any other assessment year, therefore, the addition made on account of capital gain without there being any transfer of capital asset is liable to be deleted inasmuch as the same is contrary to facts and law. 3 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO had erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.94,95,758/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain by invoking Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.11,82,935/- by adopting the valuation of DVO without considering the circumstances under which the property was sold, hence, it is prayed that the addition of Rs.11,82,935/-confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) may kindly be deleted. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and /or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” Also, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: “Additional Ground of Appeal No.1: Without prejudice to the above, alternatively, \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. Confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) disregarding the fact that the agreement for sale was entered into on 18.12.2013 and the nature of land in the revenue records as on the date of agreement was agricultural land and the amount of consideration for sale was agreed to be Rs. 21,00,00 which is more than the value adopted for stamp duty purposes, which was Rs. 9,59,700 (Rs.22,85,000x0.420 hectare), thus, for the purposes of Section 50C, valued adopted for stamp duty purposes ought to have been taken at Rs.9,59,700/- which is less than the actual consideration of Rs. 21,00,000, thus, no enhancement to total Income was warranted in terms of Section 50C in view of the amendment brought by Finance Act,2016 which has retrospective effect in view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur bench in the case of Smt. Rekha Agarwal in ITA No.282/RPR/2024 dated 08.07.2024 for A. Y2015-16, thus, no addition to Total Income was warranted and addition is liable to be deleted. It is prayed7hat the addition of Rs.11,82,935/- confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) may kindly be directed to be deleted.” 4 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 Additional Ground of appeal No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) is illegal, bad in law and liable to be an lied to inasmuch as the reference to the DVO in terms of section 50C (2) was not made for valuation of subject capital asset despite specific request made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings vide letter dated 13.10.2017 and 06.12.2017, hence, it is prayed that the assessment order may kindly be annulled.” As the assessee by raising the additional ground of appeal No.2 has sought our indulgence for adjudication of a legal issue which involves purely a question of law, and would not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, to the said extent we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view that where an assessee, had raised, though for the first time, an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal which involves purely a question of law and requires no further verification of facts, then, the same merits admission finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee firm had e-filed its return of income for A.Y.2015-16 beyond the stipulated time period contemplated u/s. 139(1) of the Act, i.e. on 23.03.2017, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee firm was selected for “limited 5 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 scrutiny” for verifying as to whether the capital gains/loss on sale of the property was correctly shown in its return of income. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee firm had in its return of income, inter alia, computed the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of land (admeasuring 0.420 hec.) situated at Village: Aklordih, Durg by taking the sale consideration at Rs.21 lacs as against the segment rate/stamp duty value prevailing at the relevant point of time at Rs.1,42,95,500/-. Although, the assessee submitted before the A.O that he had rightly computed the capital gain on sale of the aforesaid property but the A.O adopted the stamp duty value/segment rate of Rs.1,42,95,500/- that was gathered by him from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Durg u/s.131 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O reworked out the LTCG on the sale of the subject property at Rs.94,95,758/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). As the A.O despite the assessee’s objection to the adoption of the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the subject property for computing the LTCG on sale of the same had not made a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO), therefore, the CIT(Appeals) directed the A.O to obtain a valuation report from the Valuation Cell. Accordingly, the A.O made a reference to the DVO who vide his valuation report dated 6 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 17.07.2019 determined the FMV of the subject property as on the date of sale i.e. on 12.08.2014 at Rs.33,07,500/-. Although the assessee objected to the value as was determined by the DVO, but the CIT(Appeals) did not find favour with the same. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) took the deemed sale consideration for computing the LTCG on the sale of the subject property as per the report of the DVO at Rs.33,07,500/-, as against the stamp duty valuation/segment rate that was adopted by the A.O at Rs.1,42,95,500/-. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) based on his aforesaid deliberations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee firm being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e. as to whether or not the assessee firm is right in claiming that for the purpose of computing the capital gain on sale of subject property, the stamp duty value/segment rate as was applicable in the year, during which it had agreed to sale the said property was to be adopted for computing deemed capital gain u/s. 50C of the Act? 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements 7 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 8. Shri Veekass S. Sharma, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee had come forth with two fold contentions, viz. (i) that as the assessee firm had agreed to sell the subject property vide an “agreement to sell” dated 18.12.2013, i.e. during the year preceding the year under consideration, therefore, as per the “Explanation 2” to Section 2(47) of the Act, the sale transaction was to be brought to tax in the said earlier year i.e. A.Y.2014-15; and (ii) alternatively, as the assessee firm had agreed to sell the property in the immediately preceding year and received from the buyer the entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.21 lacs through cheques in the said preceding year, therefore, the stamp duty value/segment rate of the subject property as was applicable during the said preceding year i.e. A.Y.2014-15 was to be adopted as the deemed sale consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gain u/s. 50C of the Act. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. Apropos the Ld. AR’s contention that as the assessee firm had sold the property vide an “agreement to sell” dated 18.12.2013 i.e. in the period 8 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 relevant to A.Y.2014-15, and had received the entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.21 lacs vide four cheques in the said preceding year, therefore, the transfer transaction in light of the “Explanation 2” to Section 2(47) of the Act stood concluded and was liable to be brought to tax in the said year, we are unable to concur with the same. As the assessee had on his own disclosed the capital gain on sale of the subject property in its return of income for the year under consideration, i.e.A.Y.2015-16, therefore, his aforesaid contention that the transfer transaction of the said property was concluded in the year immediately to the preceding year under consideration and was to be subjected to tax in the said year cannot be accepted. 11. We shall now deal with the Ld. AR’s claim that as the assessee firm had agreed to sell the property vide an “agreement to sell” dated 18.12.2013, and received the entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.21 lacs from the buyer vide four cheques drawn on HDFC Bank, Raipur, in the said preceding year, therefore, the stamp duty value/segment rate of the subject property as was applicable during the preceding year was to be adopted as the deemed sale consideration for computing LTCG on the sale of the subject property during the year under consideration. 12. Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, which reads as under: 9 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 “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 or assessable 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 adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer : Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer: Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account 98[or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed], on or before the date of the agreement for transfer: Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and 99[five] per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where— (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as 10 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, \"Valuation Officer\" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression \"assessable\" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.” As per the “1st proviso” to Section 50C(1) of the Act, it transpires that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. However, the triggering of the “1st proviso” is conditioned by the “2nd proviso”, which contemplates that the same would be applicable only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account [or through such other electronic 11 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 mode as may be prescribed], on or before the date of the agreement for transfer. 13. At this stage, we may herein observe that though the “1st proviso” and the “2nd proviso” to Section 50C of the Act had been made available on the statute vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010, but as observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vummudi Amarendran (2020) 429 ITR 97(Mad.), the same being curative in nature has to be given retrospective effect. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under: “10. Reading of the above proviso would show that the legislature took note of the fact that there are several occasions where the Agreements are entered into between a willing vendor and willing purchaser on an agreed sale consideration, the Agreement is reduced into writing and in many a cases a substantive portion of the sale consideration is given to the vendor as advance on the date of execution of the Agreement. There are other types of transaction where the vendor executes Power of Attorney in favour of the intending purchaser empowering him to sell the property at any time he proposes to do so. In fact, this was also a subject matter of consideration, when the legislature though to introduce the amendment to section 50C of the Act. There may be cases where the sale consideration will be taken as deferred payment subject to certain contingencies. However, the case on hand is very straight forward case, where there is an Agreement for Sale, agreeing to sell the property at Rs. 19 Crores and a sum of Rs. 6 Crores has been received as advance sale consideration. The proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Act deals with cases where the date of the agreement, fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital assets are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for 12 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. Thus an amendment by insertion of proviso seeks to relieve the assessee from undue hardship. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 51/255 Taxman 293/404 ITR 654, considered the question as to whether the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 to Proviso of Section Smt. Rekha Agrawal 40(a)(ia) of the Act is curative in nature and it has to give retrospective operation from the date of insertion of the said proviso i.e., with effect from Assessment Year 2005-06. It was pointed out that the purpose of the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 is to solve the anomalies with the instrument of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, caused to the bona fide taxpayer. It was further held that the amendment even if not given any operation retrospectively, may not materially to be of consequence to the Revenue when the tax rates are stable and uniform or in cases of big assesses having substantial turnover and equally huge expenses and necessary cushion to absorb the effect; however a marginal and medium tax payer who work at low gross product rate and when expenditure becomes subject matter of an order under section 40(a)(ia) is substantial, can suffer severe adverse consequence if the amendment made in 2010 is not given retrospective operation i.e., from the date of substitution of the provision. Thus, the amendment made by the Finance Act 2010 being curative in nature was held to be retrospective in operation. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that the statutory amendment was being made to remove undue hardship to the assessee or held to be retrospective. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolkata Export Company took note of the earlier decisions on the same issue in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677, Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 3, CIT v. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 74/255 ITR 117 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Enterprises [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 and held that the new proviso should be given retrospective effect from the insertion on the ground that the proviso was added to remedy unintended consequences and supply an obvious omission. The proviso ensured reasonable interpretation and retrospective effect would serve the object behind the enactment. Thus, by taking note of the above decisions, we have no hesitation to hold that the proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Act should be taken to be retrospective from the 13 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 date when the proviso exists. The CIT(A) while allowing the assessee's appeal vide order dated 25-7-2019, took note of the submissions made by the assessee wherein they placed reliance on the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627, order of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Income tax Officer v. Modipon Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 360/154 ITD 369. (emphasis supplied by us) 14. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vummudi Amarendran (supra) had been followed by the ITAT, Raipur in the case of Smt. Rekha Agrawal Vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur, ITA No.282/RPR/2024, dated 08.07.2014, Page No.111 to 127 of APB. Accordingly, we herein proceed on the basis that the “1st & 2nd provisos” to Section 50C(1) of the Act being retroactive were applicable to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2015-16. 15. Coming to the facts of the case, we herein find that though the assessee had placed on record an “agreement to sell” dated 18.12.2013 to impress upon us that the assessee firm had based on the said instrument agreed to sell the subject property but as the same is an unregistered document, therefore, in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 340 ITR 1 (SC), the same would neither confer 14 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 any title nor transfer any interest in the subject property (except for the limited right granted u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act for defending possession). At the same time, we may herein observe that a perusal of the registered sale deed dated 12,08,2014 reveals that the assessee had received the entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.21 lacs from the buyer vide account payee cheques drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch: Raipur, in the immediately preceding year, i.e. A.Y.2014-15 as under: 16. Also, we find that partners of the assessee firm, viz. S/sshri Sundarlal Jain, Natwar Lal Agrawal and Jagdish Prasad, on the same date i.e. on 25.03.2014, had at the behest of the purchasers viz. Shri Giridhari Lodha and Nand Kishore Lodha executed a power of attorney qua the subject property in favour of Shri Manohar Lal Lodha S/o. Natwar Lal Lodha, therein authorizing him to transfer the subject property i.e. land situated at Village : Aklordih, Page 41 to 54 of APB. Also, it is a matter of fact borne from record that Shri Manohar Lal Lodha (supra), as a power of attorney holder of the assessee firm, had thereafter executed the registered 15 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 sale deed dated 12.08.2014 and transferred the property in faovur of the buyer, viz. M/s. Chandra Udyog (through partners i.e. S/shri Giridhari Lal Lodha and Nand Kishore Lodha). 17. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of a firm conviction that though the “agreement to sell” dated 18.12.2013 as had been pressed into service by the Ld. AR is unregistered, but at the same time, the facts, viz. (i) that the entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.21 lacs (supra) had been received by the assessee firm from the buyer vide account payee cheques dated 25.03.2014 drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch :Raipur in the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y.2014-15, and (ii) that on the same date i.e. 25.03.2014 the assessee firm (through partners) had at the behest of the buyer executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Shri Manohar Lal Lodha (supra) vesting with him the right to transfer the subject property, therefore, we are of the view that it can safely be concluded that the assessee firm had as on 25.03.2014, i.e. in the A.Y.2014-15 agreed to sell the subject property, and had fixed the amount of consideration to be received in lieu thereof. Accordingly, we are of a firm conviction that as the agreement fixing the amount of consideration qua the subject property was entered into by the assessee firm with the purchaser during the period relevant to A.Y.2014-15, therefore, as per the “1st & 2nd provisos” to Section 50C of the Act, it would be the stamp duty 16 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 value/segment rate as was applicable qua the said property during the aforesaid preceding year that has to be adopted as the deemed sale consideration for computing LTCG on transfer of the same during the year under consideration. 18. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations restore the matter to the file of the A.O with a direction to adopt the stamp duty value/segment rate of the subject property as of 25.03.2014 and recompute the LTCG on transfer of the same. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is modified and the matter is restored to the file of A.O in terms of our aforesaid observations. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 25th day of November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 25th November, 2024. ***SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, 17 Shree Dadu enterprises Vs. ITO-1(4), Bhilai ITA No. 460/RPR/2024 रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "