ITO, Jaipur v. AROOP MUKHARJEE, Jaipur

ITA 224/JPR/2015 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 22423114 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AFCPM7904E
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 224/JPR/2015
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Jaipur
Respondent AROOP MUKHARJEE, Jaipur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-09-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 04-03-2015
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHE S JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.224/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2) JAIPUR CUKE VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE HATHI BABU KA BAGH STATION ROD JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFCPM 7904 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : S HRI PRAVEEN SARASWAT (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BATEJA (ADDL. CIT ) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/09/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I JAIPUR DATED 19.12.2014 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TA KEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE LTCG OF RS. 6 1 57 568/- ON THE GROUND THAT NO REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE AO TO DVO IGNORIN G THE FACT THAT NO SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR REFERENCE TO DVO. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION IGNOR ING HIS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF BROTHER OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WH EREIN THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SIMILAR PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 WA S UPHELD AT RS. 225/- PER SQ. MT. ITA NO. 224/JP/15 ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAI PUR 2 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 28.03.2011 DISCLOSING THE CAPITAL GAIN INCOME BESIDES THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. ACTUA L SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS WAS RS.43 50 000 /- WHILE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP AUTHORITY U/S 50C WAS RS. 56 53 738/-. AC CORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED ITS CAPITAL GAINS LIABILITY BY SUBSTITUTIN G ITS ACTUAL SALES CONSIDERATION BY CONSIDERATION DETERMINED BY STAMP AUTHORITY AT R S. 56 53 738/- AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 AS ESTIMATED B Y THE REGISTERED VALUER AT RS. 9 00 000/- WAS CONSIDERED. HOWEVER LD. AO ENH ANCED THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO RS.65 68 431/- INVOKING SECTION 50 C CONSEQUENT TO REVISED VALUATION BY STAMP AUTHORITY IN 2013 AND ALSO SUBST ITUTED THE FMV TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED THE FMV AT RS. 65 010/ - AS ON 01.04.1981. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND AGAINST THE SAID ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.1 WE NOW REFER TO THE FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED AOS CONTENTION AND APPELLA NTS SUBMISSION PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD DULY CONSIDERED F ACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND ALSO APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. AO TOOK SU B-REGISTRARS VALUATION U/S 50C FOR THIS SAID PROPERTY WHICH WAS OBJECTED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT ASSESSEE PROVIDED A VALUATION REPORT FROM SHRI J.K. AGARWAL AND AO EXAMINED HIM ON OATH. FURTHER ASSESSEE HAS ALS O REQUEST THE AO TO REFER THIS MATTER TO DVO WHICH WAS NOT REJECTED BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN HIS REGARD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I T IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE SOLD HIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO SHRI SAJA N SINGH & STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS DONE TREATING IT AS AN INHERITED PRO PERTY. BUT AFTER A GAP OF 3 YEARS SUB-REGISTER RE-VALUED IT AS A COMMERC IAL PROPERTY AND ENHANCEMENT OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS DONE. AO E MPLOYED HIS OWN METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR COST INDEXATION AND TOOK VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT. AO SUMMARILY REJECTED NOT ONLY THAT VALUATION REPOR T BUT ALSO REJECTED ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO DVO U/S 16A FOR ASCERTAINING CORRECT VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES AND TOOK FAIR MAR KET VALUE OF THE ITA NO. 224/JP/15 ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAI PUR 3 PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS A O IS NOT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR VALUATION OF PROPERTY. THE RE IS NO REFERENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHY AND WHAT ARE REASON S FOR NOT REFERRING THIS FOR VALUATION TO DVO. ASSESSEE IN HIS SUPPORT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN CASE OF ITO VS. BINOD MEHTA (SUPRA) RATIO OF WHICH IS DIRECTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT COST OF ACQUISITION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DE LETED AND AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER COST OF ACQUISITION AS ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUE. ASSESSEES APPEAL SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED AOS CONTENTION AND APPELLA NTS SUBMISSION PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD DULY CONSIDERED F ACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND ALSO APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. ON PERUSAL OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS SEEN THAT AO TOOK VALUE AT RS. 65 68 431/- WHILE ASSESSEE TOOK IT AT RS. 56 53 738/- THUS THE DIFFER ENCE OF RS. 9 14 693/- WHICH IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT AO TOOK ENHANCED VALUATION ON BASIS OF REPORT OF SUB-REGISTRAR AS ON 15.01.2013 FOR THE PR OPERTY NO.13 BY CONSIDERING ITS COST AS COMMERCIAL UPTO DATE OF FUR THER INSPECTION RS. 26 48 512/- INSTEAD OF RS. 17 33 819/- (1/2). IT I S ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF SALE DEED THE SAID PLOT NO.13 WAS CONTI NUED ON RENT AND THE TENANT WAS USING THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR COMM ERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND RUNNING IN THE NAME OF SAJJAN PALACE. THIS ISSUE I S ALSO COVERED BY GROUND NO.2 WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA NO.3.1.2. ASSESSEES APPEAL SUCCEEDS AND ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD IS DELETED. 2.3 THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH D ID NOT DISPUTE THE REVISED VALUE OF RS 65 68 431 IN ANY APPEAL OR REVI SION OR ANY REFERENCE BUT HAD REQUESTED THE LD. AO TO REFER THE MATTER TO VAL UATION OFFICER U/S 16A OF WEALTH TAX ACT 1957 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50 C(2). HOWEVER LD. AO OUT-RIGHTLY REJECTED THE REQUEST AND TOOK THE NOTIO NAL VALUE OF RS. 65 68 431/- AS SALES CONSIDERATION. SECONDLY ASSESSEE OPTED F OR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS. 9 00 000/- AS ON 01.04.1981 AS THE COST OF ACQU ISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AND SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORTS BY AN APPROVED REGI STERED VALUER AS A SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE FMV. EVEN AFTER SUBMIT TING THE REPORT ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE LD. AO TO FURTHER OBTAIN THE OPINION OF A SECOND VALUER I.E. DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER TO PUT THE MATTER BE YOND DOUBT. HOWEVER THE AO NEITHER CONSIDERED THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPOR T NOR REFERRED THE VALUATION ITA NO. 224/JP/15 ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAI PUR 4 U/S 55A TO THE EVO AND WENT AHEAD BY SUBSTITUTING I TS OWN FMV OF RS. 65 010/- AS ON 01.04.1981. 2.4 NOW REFERRING TO GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE TH E LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID GROUND ALLEGING NO SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR REFERENCE TO DVO IS INCORRECT. ASSESSEE IS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE LD. AO THAT THE SUB REGI STRAR HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY BY CONSIDERING IT AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. HENCE I T IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ASSESSEE SO THE VALUE ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATIO N AUTHORITY U/S 50C(1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IT HAS NOT BEEN D ISPUTED IN APPEAL OR REVISION ANY-WHERE BY ASSESSEE. SO THIS MAY KINDLY BE REFERED TO VALUATION OFFICER U/S 216A FOR ASCERTAINING CORRECT VALUE OF PROPERTY. HOWEVER THE LD. AO HAD REJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IN FOLL OWING WORDS: THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY (E VALUATED VALUE) IS THE FINAL VALUE AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX AC T 1961 WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SALE CONSIDERATION. IN CASE ASSESSEE H AS ANY DISPUTE WITH THE EVALUATION VALUE/DLC RATE ADOPTED BY THE STATE REGI STERING AUTHORITIES THEN ASSESSEE IS FREE TO CHALLENGE THE SAME BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IF HE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE SAME AND DISPUTES VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR BEFORE THE INCOM E TAX AUTHORITIES WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCO ME TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RELATING THA T VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STATE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES. SECTION 50C IS UNAMBIGUOUS ON THE ISSUE AS THE VALUE FINALLY ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERI NG AUTHORITIES WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE FINAL SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSACTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THEREFORE THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE TH IS OFFICE TO REFER THE CASE TO VALUATION CELL FOR DETERMINATION FOR THE VA LUE OF PROPERTY. 2.5 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID GROUND ALLEGING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION IGNORING HIS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF BROTHER O F ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WHEREIN THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SIMILAR PROPERTY .... IS NOT CORRECT DUE TO FOLLOWING FACTS: ITA NO. 224/JP/15 ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAI PUR 5 GROUND REFERS TO THE CASE OF ALOK MUKHERJEE BROTHER OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE ISSUE OF FMV AS ON 901.04.1981 @ RS. 224/- PER SQ.M TR. WAS NEITHER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ADJUDICATED BY HER IN THE SAID DECIS ION. DEPARTMENT HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED THE SOLD PROPERTIES AS SIMILAR PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY CLAIMED TO BE SIMILAR IS THE ONE SOLD TO RAM RIKH JOSHI/MOHAN JOS HI IN 1980 BY THE FATHER OF APPELLANT. THE SAID SIMILAR PROPERTY AND THOSE SO LD BY ASSESSEE HAD LOT OF DIFFERENCE WHICH ARE NARRATED AS UNDER: A) LOCATION : RAM RIKH JOSHI PROPERTY WAS LOCATED IN KACHHI BAS TI HATHI BABU KA AHTA JAIPUR. KACHHI BASTI WHICH DID NOT HAVE CIV IL FACILITIES CLULD NOT BE COMPARED TO THE PROPERTIES LOCATED IN GOOD LOCALIT IES. PROPERTIES SOLD BY ASSESSEE WERE ON THE 30 FT. WIDTH ROAD AND 100 TO 2 00 METERS AWAY FROM THE MAIN STATION ROAD JAIPUR. B) TENANCY : RAM RIKH JOSHI PROPERTY WAS A TENANTED PROPERTY S INCE 1959 AND IT AS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE SAME VACATED FROM T HE TENANT AND THEREFORE IT WAS FINALLY SOLD TO THE TENANT ITSELF UNDER COMPELL ING CIRCUMSTANCES IN 1980 AND AT MUCH LOWER PRICE AS COMPARED TO PREVAILING P RICES OF PROPERTY WITH VACANT POSSESSION. C) TITLE DEFECTS : THERE WER LEGAL HURDLES IN EFFECTING THE SALE EOF PROPEPRTY BY THE SELLER DUE TO ONGOING BPROPERTY RELATED FAMILY DISPUTES AND THIS FACT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 01.09.1980 . PROPERTY WITH DEFECTIVE TITLE CAN NOT COMMAND THE SAME PRICE WHIC H A PROPERTY WITH CLEAR TITLE DESERVES. 2.6 THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER WHO HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT VIDE REGISTRA TION NO. CAT- I/171/CCIT/JPR/T-2/2003-04 HAD CARRIED OUT THE VALU ATION AFTER CONSIDERING ALL RELEVANT FACTORS SUCH AS LAND PRICE OF ADJACENT PRO PERTIES CONSTRUCTION THEREOF CLEAR TITLE ETC. THE AO IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE R EPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER ITA NO. 224/JP/15 ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAI PUR 6 COULD MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATIO N OFFICER U/S 55A OF THE ACT. SECTION 55A READS AS UNDER: WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTA INING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER THE AO MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER.( A) IN A CASE WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE MADE BY A REGISTERED VALUER IF THE AO IS OF OPINION THAT T HE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. THUS AS PER THE AMENDED SECTION 55A(A) W.E.F. 01.0 7.2012 THE LD. AO HAD THE FULL POWER TO REFER THE FMV (AS ON 01.04.981) TO VA LUATION OFFICER IF HE DISAGREED WITH THE VALUATION OF A REGISTERED VALUER . POST AMENDMENT THE LD. AO SHOULD NOT HAVE ASSUMED THE ROLE OF A VALUATION OFFICER HIMSELF WHEN THE LAW ITSELF HAS NOW PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO THE V ALUATION OFFICER. BESIDES THE INHERENT POWERS OF LD. AO FOR REFERENCE TO DVO ASSESESEE HIMSELF HAD REQUESTED THE LD. AO TO OBTAIN THE FRESH VALUAT ION BY STATING THAT: THEREFORE THE VALUATION PROVIDED BY THE APPROVED V ALUER FOR COST OF ACQUISITION IS CORRECT AND ACCEPTABLE IT IS BINDIN G ON YOU BEING A TECHNICAL REPORT FOR CALCULATING LAND VALUE AND COST OF CONST RUCTION EVEN THAN IF ANY DOUBTS IN YOUR MIND THEN SECOND OPINION CAN BE OBTA INED. LD. AO INSTEAD OF REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE VALUA TION OFFICER HAD CALLED THE REGISTERED VALUER U/S 131 TO HIS OFFICE AND TOOK HI S DETAILED 12 PAGE LONG STATEMENT UNDER OATH. REGISTERED VALUER CONFIRMED T HE SAME VALUATION WORKED OUT AS PER HIS TECHNICAL & PROFESSIONAL KNO WLEDGE AND COMPETENCE. HOWEVER LD. AO IGNORING THE VALUATION BY REGISTERE D VALUER AND THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO SUBSTITUTE D HIS OWN VALUATION WHICH WAS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL. HONBLE CO-O RDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 224/JP/15 ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAI PUR 7 DCIT CIRCLE- 3 JAIPUR VS. VINOD MEHTA JAIPUR (ITA NO.825/JP/2012) HAVING SIMILAR FACTUAL MATRIX HAS HELD THAT AO SHOULD HAD ACCEPTED THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT FOR THE FMV AS ON 01-04-1981. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE REVISED VALUATION OF RS 65 68 431 (AS AGAINST RS. 56 53 738/- COMPUTED EARLIER AND CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE) BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES IN THE YEAR 2013 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO H IM AND THE SAME MAY BE REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. IT IS NOTED THA T THE REASON FOR THE VARIATION IN THE VALUE RELATES TO AND LIMITED TO FLAT NO. 13 HA THI BABU KA BAGH AND IN RESPECT OF REST ALL PROPERTIES THERE IS NO VARIATI ON. IN OUR VIEW THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO IS IN DUE COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND ON THE RE CEIPT OF SUCH A REQUEST IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF THE AO TO REFER THE MATTER REGARDING THE VALUATION OF THE SUBJECT CAPITAL ASSET I.E FLAT NO. 13 HATHI B ABU KA BAGH TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THEREFORE THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN STAT ING THAT SECTION 50C IS UNAMBIGUOUS ON THE ISSUE AS THE VALUE FINALLY ADOPT ED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE FINAL SALE V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSACTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THEREFORE THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS OFFICE TO REFER THE CASE TO VALUATION CELL FOR DETERMINATI ON FOR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY. THE AO HAVING IGNORED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE U /S 50C(2) OF THE ACT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY T HAT THE MATTER IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO REFER THE MATT ER RELATING TO THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY FLAT NO. 13 HATHI BABU KA BAGH TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AS ALREADY REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONSIDER THE SAID VALUATION AS PER LAW AFTER PROVID ING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ITA NO. 224/JP/15 ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAI PUR 8 ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AS ON APRIL 1 1981 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHILE REJECTING THE SAID VALUATION HAS NOT REF ERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS AGAIN RE QUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON APRIL 1 1981 IN RESPECT OF ALL THE PROPERTIES IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFI CER AND CONSIDER THE SAME AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS THE APPEA L FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/0 9/2016. SD/- SD/ - ( KUL BHARAT ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 29/ 09/2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT I JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)-I JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.224/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR ITA NO. 224/JP/15 ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR VS. SHRI AROOP MUKHERJEE JAI PUR 9