Shri. Husenmiya Nanumiyan Sipai (Jadeja), Gandhinagar v. DCIT, Mehsana Circle,, Mehsana,

ITA 2059/AHD/2017 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 205920514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AZPPJ9677G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2059/AHD/2017
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Shri. Husenmiya Nanumiyan Sipai (Jadeja), Gandhinagar
Respondent DCIT, Mehsana Circle,, Mehsana,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 18-11-2019
Date Of Final Hearing 16-10-2019
Next Hearing Date 16-10-2019
Last Hearing Date 07-08-2019
First Hearing Date 07-08-2019
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 13-09-2017
Judgment Text
- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2057/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-13 SMT. MAHINABANU NAINABANU SIPAI (JADEJA) 2 KASBA VAS AT-CHHATRAL TAL-KALOL GANDHINAGAR. PAN : AZPPJ 9677 G VS. DCIT MEHSANA CIRCLE MEHSANA. ./ ITA NO.2058/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI ANVARMIYA ALAMIYA SIPAI (JADEJA) 2 KASBA VAS AT-CHHATRAL TAL-KALOL GANDHINAGAR. PAN : APUPJ 5927 Q VS. DCIT MEHSANA CIRCLE MEHSANA. ./ ITA NO.2059/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI HUSENMIYA NANUMIYAN SIPAI (JADEJA) 2 KASBA VAS AT-CHHATRAL TAL-KALOL GANDHINAGAR. PAN : ARHPJ 5934 E VS. DCIT MEHSANA CIRCLE MEHSANA. ./ ITA NO.2060/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI BHIKHUMEEYA ALAMMIYA SIPAI 2 KASBA VAS AT-CHHATRAL TAL-KALOL GANDHINAGAR. PAN : AZOPJ 8817 H VS. DCIT MEHSANA CIRCLE MEHSANA. ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 2 / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI AR REVENUE BY : SHRI VIDHYUT TRIVEDI SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 16/10/2019 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/11/2019 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT FOUR APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE O F THE ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) GANDHINAGAR AHMEDABAD DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED ON THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE APPELLANTS FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN NINE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHILE IMPUGNING ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN THEIR RE SPECTIVE CASES BUT COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL APPEALS IS WITH RE GARD TO DETERMINATION OF FULL SALE CONSIDERATION FOR A SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET ON THE BASIS OF WHICH CAPITAL GAIN REQUIRED TO BE C OMPUTED IN EACH HAND OF THE ASSESSEES. 3. FACTS ON ALL VITAL POINTS ARE COMMON THEREFORE FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE WE TAKE UP FACTS FROM THE CA SE OF SMT.MAHINABANU NAINABANU SIPAI (JADEJA) IN ITA NO.2057/AHD/2017. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE SHE IS A FARMER AT CHATRAL. SHE HAS FILED HER RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13 ON 21.10.2016 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME AT RS.2.11.092/-. THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.242 AT C HATRAL TEH.. KALOL DISTRICT GANDHINAGAR WAS OWNED BY FOUR CO-OW NERS VIZ. ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 3 ASSESSEE HERSELF SIPAHI MAHINABANU SIPAI HUSSAINM IYA AND SIPAHI BHIKHAMEEYA. THEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE ABOVE LAND ON 1.2.2010. AGREEMENT WAS REGISTER ED WITH OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR ON 4.3.2010. THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON IN THE AGREEMENT WAS FIXED AT RS.24 88 880/-. THE ABOVE L AND WAS CONVERTED INTO A NON-AGRICULTURE LAND ON 8.4.2011. IT WAS SOLD VIDE SALE DEED DATED 19.5.2011. THE SALE CONSIDERA TION WAS REFLECTED IN THE SALE DEED WAS RS.1 10 00 000/-. I N THE HANDS OF EACH ASSESSEE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS FALLEN AT RS. 27 30 000/-. BY TAKING THIS AMOUNT AS FULL VALUE OF SALE CONSIDER ATION EACH ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN A ND SHOWED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THE AO GOT AN INFORMATION THAT FOR THE PURPOSE O F STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED AT RS.6 47 14 285/-. ARMED WITH THIS INFORMATION HE ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. HE CONFRONTED THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION FALLEN TO EACH ASSESSEE CAME TO RS.1 61 78 571/-. THEY HAVE DISCLOSED THE SALE CON SIDERATION AT RS.27.50 LAKHS ONLY AND THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1 34 28 571/- WAS TO BE ASSESSED IN EACH HAND OF THE APPELLANTS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE THE AS SESSEES HAVE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS CONTENDING THEREIN THAT THEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 1.2.2010. IT WAS REGISTERED W ITH SUB- REGISTRARS OFFICE. THEY HAVE RECEIVED ADVANCES TH ROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE ASSESSEE SMT.MAHINABANU NAINABANU SI PAI RECEIVED RS.9.00 LAKHS VIDE CHEQUE NO.005422 ON 4. 3.2010 AND RS.3.00 LAKHS VIDE CHEQUE NO.017103 ON 5.3.2010. T HUS ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WIT H REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE AS SESSEE ON ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 4 1.2.2010 WHICH WAS REGISTERED WITH SUB-REGISTRAR O N 4.3.2010. THE TRANSACTION OUGHT TO BE CONSTRUED AS COMPLETE O N 4.3.2010. AT THE MOST THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION APPLICABLE ON THAT DATE OUGHT TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CA PITAL GAIN. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT VENDEES WERE IN HURRY AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE AGREED FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AT RS.6 47 14 285/-. SINCE STAMP DUTY WAS REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY THE VEN DEES THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES HAVE NEVER BOTHERED ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AT THIS FIGURE BY THE VENDEES. THE L D.AO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE O BSERVED THAT ACCORDING TO THE SECTION 50C FULL CONSIDERATION IS TO BE DEEMED EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WAS PA ID BY THE PARTIES FOR SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET. ACCORDINGLY HE ADOPTED FULL CONSIDERATION AT RS.6 47 14 285/-. HE DIVIDED THIS CONSIDERATION AMONGST ALL FOUR APPELLANTS AND THEREAFTER REDUCED THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALREADY COMPUTED THE CAPIT AL GAIN. THE BALANCE DIFFERENCE AT RS.1 34 28 571/- HAS BEEN ADD ED BACK INTO THE HANDS OF EACH APPELLANT. THE LD.AO ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN AND DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE SMT.MAHINABANU NAINABANU SIPAI AT RS.1 36 77 370/- AGAINST RS.2 48 799/-DISCLOSED BY HER. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A ) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WHILE IMPUGNING ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS SUBMISSI ONS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT PROVISO AP PENDED TO SECTION 50C HAS BEEN HELD TO BE APPLICABLE WITH RET ROSPECTIVE EFFECT BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSHIBHAI SONANI VS. ACIT 161 ITD 627 (AHD). ACCORDING TO THIS PROVISION IF PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGR EEMENT THEN THE ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 5 DATE OF TRANSFER OF SUCH CAPITAL ASSET IS TO BE CON STRUED FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED AND THE V ALUE APPLICABLE ON THAT DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY WOULD BE TAKEN AS FULL SALE CONSIDERATION. HOWEVE R DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WE HAVE CONFRONTED THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED ON 1 ST FEB. WAS FOR AN AGRICULTURE LAND. THE CHARACTER OF THE END-PROD UCT I.E. THE LAND SOUGHT TO BE SOLD WAS CHANGED. IT WAS CONVERTED IN TO A NON- AGRICULTURE LAND. HENCE THE POTENTIALITY OF THIS LAND HAS ENHANCED AND THEREFORE THE DATE ON WHICH IT IS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON THE DATE ON WHIC H THE LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO A NON-AGRICULTURE LAND BECAUSE IT IS ALTOGETHER A DIFFERENT PRODUCT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE QUA THIS QUERY CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THAT DATE BE TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION THEN THE CIRCLE RATE FOR ADOPTION OF STAMP DUTY VALUE ON THAT DATE HAS BEEN REVISED ON 18.4.2011 AP PLICABLE W.E.F. 1.4.2011. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED B Y THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF GUJARAT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.82 TO 87. HE TOOK US THROUGH PAGE NO.82 AND SUBMITTED T HAT RESIDENTIAL LAND HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS.250/- PER SQ UARE YARD. ASSESEES SOLD LAND ADMEASURING 24 888 SQ.METERS AND IF THAT RATE IS BEING APPLIED THEN IT IS LESS THAN RS.1 10 00 0 00/- AND THE AO SHOULD HAVE NOT MADE ANY ADDITION. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT A PERUSAL O F SECTION 50C WOULD INDICATE THAT FULL SALE CONSIDERATION WOULD B E DEEMED EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT OF THE VALUE ADOPTED OR AS SESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE GOVERNME NT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION. IN THE PRESENT CA SE THE VALUE ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 6 ADOPTED WAS RS.6 47 14 285/- AND THIS VALUE DESERV ES TO BE DEEMED AS FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COM PUTING CAPITAL GAIN. 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTIONS 48 AND 50C HAVE DIR ECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY IN HAND THEREFORE WE DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THESE SECTIONS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 48. THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T HE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS NAMELY : (I) EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY I N CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER; (II) THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AND THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO: . . 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRU ING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE AD OPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO A S THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAY MENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE S O ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES O F SECTION 48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERA TION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER : PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXIN G THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATIO N FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALU ATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION F OR SUCH TRANSFER: ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 7 PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION OR A PART T HEREOF HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CL EARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT 59[OR THROUGH SUCH OT HER ELECTRONIC MODE AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED] ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER: . . 9. A PERUSAL OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT WOULD INDICAT E THAT IT PROVIDES MODE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. IT C ONTEMPLATES INCOME ARISE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS VIZ. (A) EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER AND ( B) COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS AND COST OF ANY IMPROVEME NT THERETO. A PERUSAL OF THE SECTION 50C WOULD SHOW THAT WHERE CO NSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING THE LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY 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 PUR POSE OF SECTION 48 BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. IN OTHER WORDS FULL CONSIDERATION EMPLOYED IN SECTION 48 IS TO BE REPLACED BY THE CONSIDERATION ON WHICH VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SO ADOPTED ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT O F STAMP DUTY. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTING WITH REGARD T O THE ABOVE POSITION OF LAW. THE FIRST FOLD OF DISPUTE IS WHI CH DATE IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER. ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSEE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E. 1.2.2010 IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER BECAUSE ON THAT DATE THE AGREEMENT TO SE LL WAS ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 8 EXECUTED AND THIS AGREEMENT WAS REGISTERED WITH SU B-REGISTRAR. THE PART CONSIDERATION WAS ALSO PAID. AS FAR AS GE NUINENESS OF THIS AGREEMENT IS CONCERN IT IS NOT IN DOUBT. WHY THIS AGREEMENT COULD BE TAKEN AS DATE OF TRANSFER IS BECAUSE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. IN CASE VENDEE REFUSED TO GET THE SALE DEED REGISTERED THEN THE ASSESSEES CAN ONLY SUE FOR SPE CIFIC PERFORMANCE TO PERSUADE THE VENDEE TO PURCHASE THE LAND. IN THAT SITUATION THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE GETTING A NYTHING MORE THAN THE AMOUNT AGREED IN THE AGREEMENT. SIMILARLY THERE COULD BE A TIME GAP BETWEEN THE DATE OF AGREEMENT VIS--V IS ULTIMATE REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. THERE COULD BE AN APPRE CIATION AND/OR DEPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. IN OTHE R WORDS AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY THE RIGHT IN PERSONA IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSFEREE/VENDEE. WHEN SUCH RIGHT IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE THE VENDOR IS RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE SAID PROPERTY TO SOMEON E ELSE BECAUSE VENDEE IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE RIGHT IN PERSONA IS CREATED HAS LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANC E OF THE AGREEMENT IF THE VENDOR FOR SOME REASONS IS NOT EX ECUTING THE SALE DEED. THUS BY VIRTUE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL S OME RIGHT IS GIVEN TO THE VENDEE BY THE VENDOR. RECOGNIZING THI S REASONING THE LEGISLATURE HAS APPENDED A PROVISO TO SECTION 5 0C WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IN CASE SOME AGREEMENT FIXIN G THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE S AME THEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IS TO BE ADOPTED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THIS AGREEMENT WAS EXE CUTED. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSHIBHIA SONANI VS. ACIT( SUPRA) HAS ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 9 HELD THAT THIS PROVISO IS APPLICABLE WITH RETROSPEC TIVE EFFECT. WE DO NOT HESITATE FOR ACCEPTING THIS PROPOSITION. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE NATURE OF THE LAND HAS UNDERGONE A CHANGE . HAD THE LAND NOT CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURE LAND THEN THE DEED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BECAUSE THE VENDEES ARE NOT FARMER AND THE GUJARAT LAND REVENUE CODE PUTS AN EMBARGO UPON THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE AN AGRICULTURE LAND. THUS WHEN THE LA ND WAS CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURE LAND A DIFFERENT PR ODUCT IS BEING FORMED AND UNDERTAKEN TO SELL AND THE DATE ON WHIC H THE LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURE LAND IS TO BE C ONSTRUED AS THE ACTUAL DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE OF THE CAPITAL ASS ET. IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT DATE IS 8.4.2011. ON THIS DATE THE RATES FOR VALUATION OF THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY GOT REVISED. THUS THESE RATES HAVE BEEN REVISED O N 18.4.2011 APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1.4.2011. THUS THE VALUATION OF THE NON- AGRICULTURE LAND IS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS O F THE RATE APPLICABLE AS ON 1.4.2011. ON THIS DATE THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITIES HAVE DETERMINED THE RATE AT RS.250/- PE R SQ.METER. FOR THE LAND FALLING WITHIN THE PERIPHERY OF VILLAG E I.E. WITHIN ABADI DEH ( % ) OF RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY OF THE VILLAGE HAS BEEN FIXED AT RS.300/-. AGRICULTURE LAND CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURE LAND HAS BEEN FIXED AT RS.250/- PER SQ.METER. THER EFORE THE CAPITAL ASSET (NON-AGRICULTURE LAND) SOLD BY THE AP PELLANTS WAS REQUIRED TO BE VALUED AT THE RATE OF RS.250/- PER S Q.METR. THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1.10 CRORES IS FAR MORE THAN THE VALUE REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF TH E RATES NOTIFIED BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY AND THEREFOR E NO ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE. THERE IS ONE MORE ANGLE T O THE CONTROVERSY I.E. VENDEES HAVE PAID STAMP DUTY ON T HE VALUE OF ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 10 THE LAND DETERMINED AT RS.6 47 14 285/-. CAN THIS RATE BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE? A PERUSAL OF SECTION 50C WOU LD INDICATE THAT IT EMPLOYED TWO EXPRESSIONS VIZ. VALUE SO ADO PTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE STAM P DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS NOT ADOPTED THE VALUE. IT IS THE PARTY WHO AGREED TO PAY STAMP DUTY AT AN ENHANCED VALUE OF RS.6 47 14 285/-. THE PAYMENTS OF HIGHER STAMP DUT Y AT THE END OF THE VENDEE WAS NOT EFFECTING ANY RIGHTS OF THE A SSESSEE. THEY WERE NOT UNDER ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION. THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY WOULD NOT OBJECT PAYMENT OF HIGHER STAMP DUTY AT THE END OF THE VENDEES. HAD THEY DISCLOSED A LOWER VAL UE PROBABLY THEY WOULD HAVE ADOPTED A HIGHER VALUE ACCORDING TO THE RATES NOTIFIED BY THEM. THE STAMP DUTY PAYMENT AT THE EN D OF THE VENDEE IS ROUGHLY 6% TO 8% OF THE VALUE SO MUTUALLY AGREED BY THEM. BUT THAT MUTUAL AGREEMENT WOULD NOT AUTHORIS E THE AO TO DEEM IT FULL SALE CONSIDERATION. THE FULL SALE CON SIDERATION IS TO BE DEEMED AT THE VALUE WHICH IS ASSESSABLE BY THE STAM P DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITIES AND IF THE RATES NOTIFIED BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION T HEN SUCH VALUE WOULD COME FAR LESS THAN THE VALUE DISCLOSED BY ALL THE APPELLANTS WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. THE AREA SOLD BY THE APPELLANT WAS 24 888 SQ.YARDS. IF IT IS MULTIPLIED BY RS.250 /- THEN IT COMES OUT TO ROUGHLY RS.62.22 LAKHS. IF IT IS MULTIPLIED BY RS.300/- THEN IT COMES TO RS.74 66 400/-. THE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED JOINTLY BY ALL THE APPELLANTS IS RS.1 10 00 000/- WHICH IS FAR MORE THAN THE VALUE OUGHT TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION DESE RVES TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANTS ON ACCOUNT OF L ONG TERM ITA NO.2056/AHD/2017 AND 3 OTHERS 11 CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY ALL FOUR APPEALS OF THE APPELLANTS ARE ALLOWED AND ADDITIONS ARE DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER