Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd., New Delhi v. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 3677/DEL/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 367720114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACE8177D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3677/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent CIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 01-08-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 3677/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ELDECO INFRASTRUCTURE & PROPERTIES LTD. VS. COMMISS IONER OF IT 201/212 SPENDER FORUM DELHI-IV 2 ND FLOOR JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI-1100 25 (PAN: AAACE8177D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI GAURAV JA IN AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S. KRISHNA CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.03.2012 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER DATED 22.06.2011 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. THE GROUND S OF APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF T HE ITAT'S RULES THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY MODIFYING THE AS SESSMENT ORDER DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTITUTE FULL VALUE OF C ONSIDERATION WITH THE 2 ALLEGED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.33 47 66 257 FOR CO MPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A LIMITED COMPANY. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 26.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.22 42 86 363 AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 OF RS.22 20 17 423. LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26.4.2011. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED A LEASEHOLD PLOT . MEASURING 302.90 SQ.MTR. IN AN OPEN AUCTION HELD BY THE DDA ON 19.1. 2005 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.700 85 000. THE FAR ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE O N THIS PLOT WAS 1160.125 SQ. MTR. IN FOUR STORIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING AND SHOWN THE ASSETS AS A CAPITAL ASSET. THE ASSESS EE HAD RENTED OUT THE PROPERTY TO ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR A SUM OF RS.23.40 LACS PER MONTH VIDE LEASEHOLD AGREEMENT DATED 28.6. 2007. THE LEASE WAS FOR NINE YEARS W.E.F. 28.6.2007 WITH MONTHLY RENTAL INC REASE @ 15% EVERY THREE YEARS TERM. THE LEASE WAS TERMINATED BY ICICI PRUD ENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. VIDE LETTER DATED IST OF OCTOBER 2009. THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAD VALUED THE PROPERTY AFTER CONSTRUCTION AT RS.11 58 81 000 THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT VALUERS REPORT DATED 20.6.2007. IT HAD ENTERED INT O AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE 3 WITH SMT. ASHA BAJAJ MOTHER OF MANAGING DIRECTOR O F THE CO. ON 31.7.2007. THE SALES CONSIDERATION WAS SETTLED AT RS.11.70 CRO RES. A SUM OF RS.25 LACS WAS TAKEN FROM SMT. ASHA BAJAJ ON 16.5.2007. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT REVEALED THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER DELHI-IV APPOINTED A SPECIAL AUDITOR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT. THE SPECIAL AUDITOR HAS DETERMINED THE F.M .V. OF THIS PROPERTY AS ON 31.7.2007 BY NET MAINTAINABLE RENT CAPITALIZATION METHOD AT RS.29 83 50 000. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL AUDITOR REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE V ALUATION OFFICER ON 16.3.2011. THE V.O. HAS SUBMITTED HIS REPORT ON 19. 4.2011 WHEREIN HE HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.12 78 79 481. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING THIS VALUE INSTEAD OF SALES CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSE E AT RS.11.70 CRORES. 3. LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON AN ANALYSIS OF THIS RECO RD FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER DETERMINED THE F AIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SALES INSTANCES OF DWARKA WHEREAS AUCTION OF SIMILAR TYPE OF PROPERTY HAD BEE N CARRIED OUT BY THE DDA IN VASANT KUNJ ITSELF. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER DDA AUCTIONED A COMPARABLE PLOT OF LAND IN VASANT KUNJ ON 17.1.2007. THIS PLOT 4 IS ALMOST SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE DISCU SSED THE SIMILARITY OF BOTH THE PLOTS AND THE PRICE AT WHICH PLOT AT VASANT KUN J WAS AUCTIONED. THE AUCTION HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 17.1.2007 PLOT AREA IS OF 2885 SQ. MTR. THE PERMISSIBLE FAR IS 4688. THE RATE AT WHICH THIS PLO T WAS SOLD IS RS.02 70 950. LEARNED COMMISSIONER FORMED AN OPINIO N THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SALE S INSTANCES OF A ADJOINING PROPERTY WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE DET ERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. THUS THIS ACTION IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF THE REVENUE ALSO. HE ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 263. IN RESP ONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES IN THEIR SIZE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION TH EIR COMMERCIAL POTENTIALITY ETC. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER POINTED OUT THAT ASSES SING OFFICER HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO THE V.O. AND IT IS OBLIGATORY FOR HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT INCONFORMITY WITH THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE DVO. I T ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ONCE A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE V.O. UNDER SE C. 16A(1) OF THE WEALTH- TAX ACT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE V.O. IS BINDING ON THE WTO IMPLYING THAT IT IS BINDING UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 A LSO UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DEVIATE FROM THE 5 FMV ESTIMATED BY THE V.O. AND THEREFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ERROR. THE EXERCISE OF VA LUATION IS SUBJECTIVE AND ANY VALUATION CARRIED OUT BY THE EXPERT CANNOT BE S AID TO BE ERRONEOUS. APPARENT CONSIDERATION AGREED AND NEGOTIATED BETWEE N THE TWO PARTIES CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. LEARNED COMMISSIONER REJECTED ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE COM PUTED BY ADOPTING THE RATE AT WHICH VASANT KUNJ PLOT WAS SOLD IT COMES O UT TO RS.33 47 66 257. HE MODIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DIRECTED THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO ADOPT THIS FAIR MARKET VALUE IN PLACE OF FULL CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SHOWN FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SEC TION 48 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961. IN OTHER WORDS LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS SUBSTITUTED FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUG NING THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER RAISED NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS. IN HIS FIRST PROPOSITION HE POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 45 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY PROFIT OR GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASS ETS EFFECTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 54 54B 54D 54E ETC. BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GA INS AND SHALL BE DEEMED 6 TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 48 OF THE ACT PROV IDES THE MODE OF COMPUTATION AND IT STATES THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABL E UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN 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 ASSETS THE AMOUNTS NAMELY (A) EXPENDITURE INCURRE D WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER; (B) THE COST OF A CQUISITION OF THE ASSETS AND THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO. HE EMPHASIZED THAT THIS SECTION CONTEMPLATES EXPRESSION FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDER ATION. THIS FULL VALUE CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY FAIR MARKET VALUE. THERE I S NO PROVISION FOR SUCH SUBSTITUTION AS SUGGESTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS HE RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KP VERGHESE VS . ITO REPORTED IN 131 ITR 597. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. NILOFER I. SINGH REPORTED IN 309 ITR 233. IN HIS NEXT FOLD OF SUBMISSIONS HE POINTED OUT THAT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE HELP OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT AND HE CANNOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO THE VO. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE REFERENCE AND COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAI NS ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUERS REPORT. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THAT T HE ASPECT IN THE APPEAL 7 WHICH IS A SEPARATE ISSUE. IN THAT ISSUE ASSESSEE IS IMPUGNING WHETHER THE FULL VALUE OF THE SALES CONSIDERATION IS TO BE TAKE N AT RS.11.70 CRORES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE OR RS.12 78 79 481 ADOPTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT. IN SUPPOR T OF HIS CONTENTIONS HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRAKANT R. PATEL & ORS. REPORTED IN 131 ITD 1 W HEREIN ITAT HAS CONSIDERED THE SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 50C 55A FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SEC. 48 OF THE ACT ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSETS. IN HIS NEXT FOLD OF SUBMISSIONS HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ADOPT F.M.V. WHICH IS HIGHER THAN TH E STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE ELABORATING HIS ARGUMENTS POINTED OUT THAT IN SECTION 50C A DEEMING FICTION HAS BEEN CREATED WHICH AUTHORIZED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO DEEM FULL SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE OR ACCR UED TO AN ASSESSEE AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSETS EQUIVAL ENT TO THE AMOUNT ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PA YMENT OF STAMP DUTY WHILE REGISTERING THE SALES DEED ON SUCH TRANSFER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN O NLY ADOPT THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF THE STAMP DUTY. IF AN ASSESSEE HAS AN OBJECTION ABO UT ADOPTION OF A HIGHER 8 VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY THEN UNDER SUB-SECTION(2) A MECHANISM HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE V.O. IF AN ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED CONSIDERATION HIGHER THAN TH E STAMP DUTY VALUATION THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER SUBSTITUTION WITH F.M.V. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT D ELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAVIKANT VS. ITO REPORTED IN 110 TTJ 297. IN HIS NE XT FOLD OF SUBMISSIONS HE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT DEV IATE FROM ESTIMATE MADE BY THE V.O. THEREFORE THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR I N THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH AUTHORIZED THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER T O TAKE COGNIZANCE UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. 5. IN HIS NEXT FOLD OF SUBMISSIONS HE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS FOR NOT TAKING ACTION WHICH HE WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO DO SO IN LAW. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE RATES M ENTIONED IN THE REPORT. HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO DEVIATE FROM THE REPORT AND FUR THER TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE SALE DEED OF ADJOINING PLOT. HE F URTHER POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HIS ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS THEREFORE NO ACTION UNDER SEC . 263 IS PERMISSIBLE. FOR BUTTRESSING HIS CONTENTIONS HE RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SIMBHAOLI INDUSTRIES LTD. V S. DCIT REPORTED IN 78 9 ITD 161. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BL E RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS V S. DCIT REPORTED IN 281 ITR 177. 6. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPRESSION FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION REFERRED IN SECTION 48 OF T HE ACT DOES NOT MEAN THE SALES CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED ONLY . THE TRUE IMPORT OF THIS EXPRESSION WOULD BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF AN ASS ET WHICH WERE SOLD BY AN ASSESSEE. HAD THAT WAS AN INTENTION ? THEN THE LEGI SLATURE WOULD HAVE INCORPORATED THE EXPRESSION CONSIDERATION DISCLOSE D IN THE REGISTERED DEED. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN FAIR MARKET VALUE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A REFERENCE UNDER SEC. 55A OF THE ACT TO THE V.O. HOW EVER LEARNED V.O. DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SALE DEED OF ADJOINING PLOT THUS THE ERROR COMMITTED B Y HIM HAS BEEN AMPLIFIED BY INACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT SECTION 263 AUTHORIZES THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT THEREFORE THE ACTI ON COMMITTED AT THE END OF THE V.O. WOULD COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPRESSION THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS EMPLOYED IN SECTION 263 AND THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT 10 THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VE E ENTERPRISES REPORTED IN 99 ITR 373 PROPOUNDED THE ROLE REQUIRED TO BE PLAYE D BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MRS. KHAT IZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO MUMBAI 101 TTJ 1095 HAS ANALYZED IN DETAIL VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES 243 ITR 83 AS WELL AS H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. RE PORTED IN 203 ITR 108 AND HAS PROPOUNDED THE FOLLOWING BROADER PRINCIPLE TO JUDGE THE ACTION OF CIT TAKEN UNDER SECTION 263. (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORD ER OF THE A.O IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. (II) SEC. 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AN D EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE A O AND IT WAS ON LY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCOR RECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERR ONEOUS. (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION O F MIND SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOUS ORDER. 11 (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE A.O HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSI BLE AND THE A.O HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGRE E IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER UNLESS THE VIEW TAKE N BY THE A.O IS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW. (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT THE A.O EXAMI NES THE ACCOUNTS MAKES ENQUIRIES APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINE THE INCOME THE CIT WHILE E XERCISING HIS POWER UNDER S. 263 IS NOT PERMITTED TO SUBSTITUTE H IS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. (VII) THE A.O EXERCISES QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VEST ED IN HIS AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARR IVES AT A CONCLUSION SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CO NCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION . (IX) IF THE A.O HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER IN WRITING AND THE A.O ALLO WS THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E THE DECISION OF THE A.O CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE I N HIS ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGAR D. 8. BEFORE EMBARKING UPON AN INQUIRY ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HOW THOSE FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEA RNED REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A REFERENCE O F THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VEE GEE ENT ERPRISES REPORTED IN 99 ITR 373 WHEREIN HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS EXPOUNDED TH E APPROACH OF THE 12 ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. T HE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT READ AS UNDER:- IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE F URTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON T HE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICE R SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEME NTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS. THE POSITION AND FUNCTION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS VERY DIFFEREN T FROM THAT OF A CIVIL COURT. THE STATEMENT MADE IN A PLEADING PROVED BY T HE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE MAY BE ADOPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL. THE CIVIL COURT IS NEUTRAL. IT SIMPLY GIVES DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE WHICH COMES BEFO RE IT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT A LSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF THE RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS D UTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY. IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE ITO TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETU RN WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD MADE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD E RRONEOUS IN SECTION 263 INCLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN EN QUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUCH AN INQUIRY HAS NOT B EEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. 13 9. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE PROPOSITION LET US EXAMIN E THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 19 61 CONTEMPLATES THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE R ECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT AND IF HE CONSIDERS TH AT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HE MAY AFTER GIVING AN OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER MAKING AN INQUIRY PASS SUCH ORDE R THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY. HE MAY ENHANCE T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MODIFYING IT HE MAY CANCEL IT AND HE MAY DIRECT A FRESH INQUIRY. IN THE PRESENT CASE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS MODIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ENHANCING THE CAPITAL GAIN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSE E. LEARNED V.O. FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF A SIMILARLY SITUATED SALES INSTA NCES WHICH WERE AVAILABLE TO HIM AT THE TIME OF DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE. THE AUCTION AT VASANT KUNJ IS PRIOR TO THE SALES EFFECTED BY THE A SSESSEE THEREFORE TO THE EXTENT THAT HE FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF A SIMIL ARLY SITUATED SALES INSTANCES THE REPORT OF THE V.O. CAN BE TERMED AS AN ERRONEOUS ONE WHICH HAS BEEN EFFECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WHICH RESULTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS. THE COGNIZANCE TAKEN BY THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER TO THAT EXTENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED AND WE UPHOLD THE ACTI ON TO THIS EXTENT. 14 10. THE NEXT FOLD OF ISSUE AGITATED BEFORE US IS WH ETHER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITUTING FULL VALU E OF CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. SECTIONS 45 48 AND 50C OF THE ACT HAVE A DI RECT BEARING ON THE ISSUE THEREFORE WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF T HE RELEVANT PART OF THESE SECTIONS. THE SAME ARE AS UNDER: CAPITAL GAINS. 45. (I) ANY PROFITS OR GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANS FER OF A CAPITAL ASSET EFFECTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL SAVE AS OTHERW ISE PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 54 54B 54D 54E 54EA 54EB 54F 54G AN D 54H BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GA INS AND SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHI CH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. X X X X X X X X X 48. THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE C ONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS NAMELY:- I) EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER; 15 II) THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AND THE COST O F ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO. X X X X X X X X X SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION I N CERTAIN CASES . 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUI NG AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEI NG LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [O R ASSESSABLE] BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREINAFTER IN THI S SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE S O ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [OR ASSESSABLE] SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) X X X X X 11. A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 45 WOULD SUGGEST THAT ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSETS THE CAPITAL GAIN OR PROFIT ARISING TO AN AS SESSEE WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. THIS ACTION PROVIDES CERTAIN CONDITIONS IF T HOSE ARE ADHERE TO BY AN ASSESSEE THEN SUCH GAIN WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. T HESE CONDITIONS ARE PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 54 54B 54D AND 54E ETC. IN T HOSE CLAUSES A 16 MECHANISM HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR UTILIZATION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AND FURTHER INVESTMENT. THESE ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE CONTROVE RSY IN HANDS. THEREAFTER SECTION 48 PROVIDES MODE OF COMPUTATION AND IT SUGG ESTS THAT FROM FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION THE EXPENDITURE ENUMERATED IN CLAUSE (I)AND (II) WOULD BE DEDUCTED. THIS SECTION TALKS OF FULL VALUE OF CO NSIDERATION. SECTION 50C IS A SPECIAL PROVISION WHICH CREATES A DEEMING FICTION WHERE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION CAN BE SUBSTITUTED BY AN AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED AS A VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKI NG PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AS DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION MORE THAN THIS STAMP DUTY VALUATION THEREFORE THIS SECTION IS ALSO NOT VERY RELEVANT. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT IT WANTS TO REPLACE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION PROVIDED IN SECTION 48 WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN DEALT WITH ELABORATELY BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CHANDERKANT R. PATEL AND WE CANNOT DO BETTER THAN TO EXTRACT THE LUCID DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ITAT IN THAT CASE. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE WAS A CO-OWNER IN TWO PLOTS BEARING NOS. 181/1 AND 161/1 SITUATED AT T.P. SCHE ME VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD. THESE PLOTS WERE SOLD. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. IT EMERGES OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS 17 SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1032 32 364. THE DVO HAS D ETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.6613 74 000. ASSESSING OFFICER S OUGHT TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF THIS REPORT. THE ITAT DID NOT APPROVE THIS COURSE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH AN D ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF SHORT COMPILATION FILED BEFORE US AS ALSO THE CASE LAWS CITED. A QUESTION HAS TIME AND AGAIN CROPPED UP BEFORE US BEING RAISED FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE THAT WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF DELETION OF SECTION 52 FROM I. T. ACT. FROM THE SI DE OF THE REVENUE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHALLENGED THAT TOO FERVENTLY THAT IN CASE O F UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE A.O. IS POWERLESS IN NOT SUBSTITUTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAP ITAL GAIN. IN ADDITION TO THIS BASIC APPREHENSION AS ALSO CONTENTION AS FAR AS TH IS APPEAL IS CONCERNED FEW OTHER POINTS ON MERITS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONTESTED BEFORE US . WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE LEGAL ASPECT AS STRONGLY CONTESTED BEFORE US BY BOT H THE SIDES. 9.1. SECTION 52 OF THE ACT WAS AN EMPOWERING SECTION THROUGH WHICH THE ITO HAD BEEN ENSHRINED WITH THE POWERS TO SUBSTITUTE TH E AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION BY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF A C APITAL ASSET IF IN HIS OPINION THE CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER WAS UNDER-STATED. IT WAS VERY WIDE AND EFFECTIVE SECTION THROUGH WHICH THE A.O. USED TO MAKE REFEREN CE TO DVO TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS SECTION WA S CONSIDERED TO BE ARBITRARY IN NATURE HENCE IT WAS OMITTED FROM THE STATUTE BY TH E FINANCE ACT 1987 W. E. F. 1- 4-1988. IN THE WISDOM OF HONBLE PARLIAMENT IF A SECTION IS NO MORE IN THE STATUTE THEN NATURALLY THE INTENTION OF THE CONSTIT UTIONAL BODY HAS TO BE FOLLOWED AND RESPECTED. IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT SECTION 52 AS IT STOOD BEFORE ITS OMISSION HAS USED TWO PHRASEOLOGY ONE WAS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE OTHER 18 WAS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. IN THAT SECTIO N IT WAS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT WHERE A PERSON TRANSFER A CAPITAL ASSET WITH THE OB JECT TO AVOID OR REDUCE THE LIABILITY U/S. 45 THEN THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERAT ION FOR THE TRANSFER SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS DETERMINED BY THE A.O. AFTER ITS DELETION THERE IS NO SUCH WORDINGS IN AN Y OF THE SECTIONS RELEVANT FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. WE SHALL TAKE UP RIGHT NOW HEREINBEL OW THOSE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS THROUGH WHICH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE CAN TAKE PLACE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. THE REASON FOR THIS DISCUSSION I S THE APPREHENSION EXPRESSED BY LD. D.R. MR. MADHUSUDAN BUT HIS APPREHENSION CANNOT BE ANSWERED BY THIS FORUM AND WE HAVE TO CONFINE OURSELVES WITHIN THE AMBITS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE I. T. ACT AS APPLICABLE ON THE PRESENT FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 9.2) NOW WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 55A OF THE I. T. ACT AS CONTESTED BY MR. MADHUSUDAN BEFORE US. THE LANGUAG E OF THE SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS:- SECTION 55A. 'WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER- (A) IN A CASE WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE MADE BY A REGISTERED V ALUER IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THA N ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE ; (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF OPINION : (I) THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE OF TH E VALUE OF THE ASSET AS SO CLAIMED OR BY MORE THAN SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESC RIBED IN THIS BEHALF; OR 19 (II) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET AND OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NECESSARY SO TO DO AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE THE PROVISION S OF SUBSECTIONS (2) (3) (4) (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A CLAUSES (HA) AND (I) O F SUB-SECTION (3A) AND (4) OF SECTION 23 SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24 SECTION 34AA SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT 1957 (27 OF 1957) SHALL WIT H THE NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY I N RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECT ION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION.IN THIS SECTION 'VALUATION OFFICER' H AS THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT 1957 (27 OF 1957).' 10. THIS SECTION IS MEANT ONLY TO ASCERTAIN THE FA IR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET. THIS SECTION IS OPERATIVE ON CHAPTER IV OF I. T. ACT I.E. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. CHARGING SECTION FOR CAPITAL GAIN IS SECTION 45 WHICH PRESCRIBES THAT ANY PROFITS AND GAINS SHALL B E CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC TION 48. FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 WHATSOEVER EITHER VALUE OF ANY MONEY O R THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET ON THE DATE OF SUCH RECEIPT SHALL BE DEEMED T O BE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T RANSFER OF SUCH ASSET. HOWEVER SECTION 48 PRESCRIBED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO A CCOUNT. THIS SECTION DOES NOT REFER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHA RGING CAPITAL GAIN. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED . SECTION 48 MODE OF COMPUTATION. THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER TH E HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED 20 OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPI TAL ASSET THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS NAMELY : (I) EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER; (II) THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AND THE C OST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO: 11. IN THIS CONTEXT THE LD. A.R. MR. SHAH HAS FUR THER EXPLAINED THAT IN SECTION 45 AT SOME PLACES THE TERM FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS BEE N MENTIONED FOR E.G. SECTION 45 (4) OF I. T. ACT BUT THAT MENTION IS FOR THE SPECI FIC PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE VALUE OF DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSET ON THE DISSO LUTION OF A FIRM. THEN HE HAS QUOTED SECTION 45 (2) WHICH IS WITH A SPECIFIC PURP OSE OF TRANSFER BY WAY OF CONVERSION OF A PERSONAL CAPITAL ASSET INTO THE STO CK IN TRADE. MR. SHAH HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN SECTION 45(1A) AS WELL THERE IS A MENTION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE BUT IT IS IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS TO BE REC EIVED FROM AN INSURER ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION DUE TO NATURAL CALAMITY F LOOD EARTHQUAKE ETC. ON THE BASIS OF THESE ARGUMENTS A CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN THAT SINCE THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 55A DO NOT REFER VALUE OF CONSIDERATION B UT ONLY USED THE WORDINGS FAIR MARKET VALUE THEN ITS APPLICABILITY FOR THE PURPOS E OF REFERENCE TO A VALUATION OFFICER HAS TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN THAT LIMITED A REA SO THE SCOPE IS ALSO CONFINED TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASS ET ONLY. THE OUTCOME OF THIS DISCUSSION THUS LEADS TO A CONCLUSION THAT EVEN IF THE AO HAS CALLED FOR A REPORT TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASS ET BUT CONSIDERING THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 48 OF THE I.T. ACT THE SAME CANNOT BE S UBSTITUTE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. IN FACT THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP BE FORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. NILEFER I. SINGH REPORTED AT 309 ITR 233 (DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS DEALT WITH IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - WHEN A SALE OF PROPERTY TAKES PLACE THE CAPITAL G AINS ARISING OUT OF SUCH A TRANSFER HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER. FROM THE FULL VALUE 21 OF THE CONSIDERATION THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INC URRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER AS ALSO THE COST O F ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AND THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO HAVE TO BE DEDUCTED . THE EXPRESSION FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING REF ERENCE TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET TRANSFERRED BUT ONLY MEANS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE TRANSFEROR IN EXCHANGE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TRANSFE RRED BY HIM. IN THE CASE OF A SALE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IS THE FULL SALE PR ICE ACTUALLY PAID. FULL VALUE MEANS THE WHOLE PRICE WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION WHATSO EVER AND IT CANNOT REFER TO THE ADEQUACY OR INADEQUACY OF THE PRICE BARGAINED F OR. NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY NECESSARY REFERENCE TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE CAPI TAL ASSET WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TRANSFER. THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDER ATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO THE MARKET VALUE BUT ONLY TO THE CONSIDERATION R EFERRED TO IN THE SALE DEEDS AS THE SALE PRICE OF THE ASSETS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSF ERRED. THE REFERENCE TO A VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 55A IS FOR THE OBJECT OF ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASS ET. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VA LUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET IN SUCH CASES AS COVERED BY SECTION 45(4) OR SECTION 45(1A) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A CAN BE INVOKED. .. HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE FULL VALUE O F THE CONSIDERATION WAS THE SALE PRICE OF THE TWO PROPERTIES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A CASE THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR COMPUTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THU S THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFIC ERS. 12. ON CAREFUL READING OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IT EMERGES THAT THE AREA OF OPERATION OF SECTION 55A O F THE ACT IS TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET. SINCE SECTI ON 48 OF THE ACT THROUGH WHICH CAPITAL GAIN IS COMPUTED PRESCRIBE TO COMPUTE THE G AIN ON THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T HE TRANSFER. THEREFORE SECTION 22 55A CANNOT GIVE ANY ASSISTANCE TO COMPUTE THE CAPIT AL GAIN U/S.48 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING THE EXPRESSION FULL V ALUE OF CONSIDERATION( SEC. 48 ) DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME MEANING AND CAN NOT BE USED IN PLACE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE (SEC.55A). TO ELABORATE THIS POINT SECTION 48 DO NOT PRESCRIBE THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN IS TO BE COMPUTED ON THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BUT IT ONLY PRESCRIBES TO CHARGE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE CONSI DERATION RECEIVED THEREFORE SECTION 55A CANNOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPU TATION OF CAPITAL GAIN U/S.48 OF I.T. ACT. EVEN FURTHER WE ELABORATE THAT SECT ION 55A IS MEANT ONLY TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BUT NOT MEANT TO DETERMINE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESUL T OF THE TRANSFER THEREFORE SECTION 55A HAS ITS OWN LIMITATION FOR ITS OPERATION. TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE LANGUAGE OF BOTH THE S ECTIONS AND THEREUPON GIVEN A VERDICT THAT THE EVENTS UNDER WHICH A REFERENCE TO A VALUATION OFFICER CAN BE MADE IS LIKE THE ONCE ACQUIRING IN SECTION 45(4) OR SECTION 45(1A) OF I.T. ACT. THE COURT HAS CONCLUDED THAT SINCE SECTION 48 DO NOT PR ESCRIBE THE DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON FAIR MARKET VALUE HENCE OUT OF T HE AMBITS OF REFERENCE PRESCRIBE U/S.55A OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AS ALSO FOLLOWING THE CASE LAW CITED SUPRA WE HEREBY REJEC T THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE. 12.1. THE EXPRESSION FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS A LSO BEEN USED IN RESPECT OF COST OF ACQUISITION WHERE A CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PR OPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 1981 AS PER SECTION 55(2)(B) OF TH E ACT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN U/S 48 THE FAIR MARKET VALUE CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PLACE OF COST OF ACQUISITION AND F OR THAT PURPOSE THE VALUATION CAN BE REFERRED TO A VALUATION OFFICE. THEREFORE THIS PROVISION FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED IN THE S TATUTE TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO DISTURB THE SALE PRICE WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. 23 13. SCOPE OF REFERENCE U/S.55A VIS-AVIS SECTION 5 0C OF I.T. ACT. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS TITLED AS SP ECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CERTAIN CASES. MEANING THEREBY T HIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO EACH AND EVERY CASE OF SALE BUT THIS IS TO BE APPLI ED IN RESPECT OF THOSE SALES INSTANCES WHERE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF S TAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER. IN THAT SITUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF S ECTION 48 OF THE ACT I.E. COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN VALUE SO ADOPTED BY T HE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. MEANING THEREBY THE SUBSTITUTION OF FUL L VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IS POSSIBLE IF THE DISCLOSED CONSIDERATION IS LESS TH AN THE VALUE DETERMINED FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PRESCRIBED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY EXCEEDS THEIR FAIR MARKET VALUE OR THE VALUE SO ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATIO N AUTHORITY IS NOT DECIDED BY ANY OTHER COURT OR HIGH COURT THEN THE AO MAY REFE R THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER U/S.55A OF I.T. ACT. THEREFORE THE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE ACT HAS PRESCRIBED THAT A REFERENCE U/S.55A CAN BE MADE FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE AS PRESCRIBED U/S.50C OF THE I.T. ACT. WHEREVER TH E LEGISLATURE CONSIDERED IT PROPER A PROVISION FOR REFERENCE TO DVO HAS BEEN P RESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE BUT REFERENCE U/S.55A IS NOT PRESCRIBED TO BE APPLIED IN EACH SUCH CASE MERELY ON THE SWEET WILL OF THE AO. WE CAN THEREFORE HOLD THAT IF A REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A PROPERTY THEN WHEREVER THIS PHRASE I.E. TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS USED THERE ONLY THE RECOURSE OF SECTION 55A IS POSSIBLE. IN THIS CONTEXT FEW DEC ISIONS NAMELY JITENDRA MOHAN SAXENA 117 TTJ 975/ 305 ITR 62 ( AT) (LUCKNOW) AND THE DECISION PUNJAB POLY JUTE CORPORATION 120 TTJ 1113 / 313 ITR 178 ( AT) ( AMRITSAR) CAN ALSO BE CITED. IT WAS RULED THAT THE SCOPE OF SECTION 50C OF THE A CT IS IN RESPECT OF ARRIVING AT THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IF IT IS LOWER THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE THEN THE AO IS JUSTIFIED TO MAKE A REFERENCE U/S.55A TO DVO. IN OTHER WORDS WE CAN THUS HOLD THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMPUTATION OF CA PITAL GAIN U/S.48 A REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO DVO ONLY IN A SITUATION AS PRESCRIBE D U/S.50C OF THE ACT. AND NOT 24 OTHERWISE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE HEREBY DISMISS GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE. 14. IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 142A OF THE I.T. ACT TITLED AS ESTIMATE BY VALUATION OFFICER I N CERTAIN CASES. THIS SECTION PRESCRIBES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR MAKING AN ASSES SMENT WHERE AN ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ANY INVESTMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 69 69B 69A IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE THE AO MAY REQUIRE THE VALUATION OFFICER TO MAKE AN ESTIMATE OF SUCH VALUE AND REPORT THE SAME TO AO. THEREFORE THE AREA OF OPER ATION AND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 142A IS LIMITED IN ITS SPAN I.E. ONLY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ASSETS SUCH AS BULLION JEWELL ERY VALUABLE ARTICLES ETC. IN THIS SECTION AS WELL THERE IS NO POWER VEST WITH AO TO S EEK THE HELP OF VALUATION OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAIN PRESCRIBED U/S.48 OF THE ACT. 14.1. IT IS VERY INTERESTING AS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 01/07/2010 A CLAUSE HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANC E ACT 2010 WHICH SAYS QUOTE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY REFERR ED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 56 UNQUOTE. BY THE INSERTION OF THIS CL AUSE THE SCOPE OF VALUATION U/S 142A HAS BEEN ENLARGED BY INCLUDING THE PROPERTY RE FERRED IN SECTION 56(2) TO DETERMINE ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. SECTION 56(2) IS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ASSETS THE INCOME FROM WHICH IS SUBJECT TO TAX U/S.56 I.E. UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH GENERATE DIVIDEND INCOME INTEREST INCOME HIRING INCOME ETC. CAN NO W BE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. TO REMOVE ANY DOUBT VIDE AN EXPLANATION ANNEXED TO SECTION 56(2) FAIR MARKET VALUE IS DEFINED THAT THE VALUE IS TO BE DETERMINE D IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 11U AND 11UA OF THE I.T. RULES 1962. RULE 11UA IS IN RESPECT OF DETERMINA TION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 56 OF THE PROPERTY SUCH AS VALUATION OF JEWELLERY VALUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTION DRAWINGS P AINTINGS VALUATION OF SHARES AND SECURITIES FAIR MARKET VALUE OF UNQUOTED EQUIT Y SHARES AND SECURITIES ETC. THEREFORE THE AREA OPERATION OF SECTION 142A IS LI MITED IN ITS RANGE AND CONFINED 25 TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 ETC. AND SECTION 5 6(2) OF I.T. ACT. A CONCLUSION THEREFORE CAN BE DRAWN AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO MEN TION THAT WHILE INSERTING A CLAUSE OF VALUATION FOR THE PROPERTIES PRESCRIBED U/S.56(2) THE LEGISLATURE HAD IN ITS WISDOM THOUGHT IT PROPER NOT TO INCLUDE ANY OT HER KIND OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF VALUATION AS PER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT. HENCE AGAIN A CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN THAT EVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142A O F THE ACT DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO SUBSTITUTE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN U/S.48 OF THE ACT. 15. BEFORE WE PART WITH WE MAY LIKE TO REFER THAT IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB POLY JUTE CORPORATION 313 ITR 178 (AT)(AMRITSAR) THE RE SPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS OPINED THAT WHERE A PROPERTY IS REGISTERED AT A PARTICULAR RATE WHICH WAS ADOPTED FOR REGISTRATION PURPOSE THEN THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF REPLACING THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WITH THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. SINCE THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAD ACCEPTED TH E CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SALE DEED THERE WAS NO QUESTIO N OF ONCE AGAIN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON AN ANOTHER DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF DEV KUMAR JAIN 309 ITR 240 (DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVE D THAT A COMBINED READING OF SECTION 55A AND SECTION 48 SHOWS THAT WHEN A SAL E OF PROPERTY TAKES PLACE THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF SUCH A TRANSFER HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY LOOKING AT THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUIN G AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. THE EXPRESSION FULL VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION I S NOT THE SAME AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS APPEARING IN SECTION 55A. IT WAS HELD TH AT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR COMPUTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. 16. THE SUMMUM BONUM OF ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DIS CUSSION IS THAT SECTION 45 TALKS ABOUT SUBSTITUTION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE WITH THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ONLY IN CERTAIN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS DET ERMINATION OF VALUE OF DAMAGE 26 AS A RESULT OF FLOOD RIOT ACCIDENT FIRE ETC( SE C.45(1A). SECTION 45(4) ALSO PRESCRIBES THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BE DEEMED TO THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSET ON THE DISSOLUTION OF A FIRM. CERTAIN SPECIFIC INSTANCES HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED UN DER THE ACT AND ONLY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FAIR MARKET VALUE CAN BE SU BSTITUTED WITH THE AMOUNT OF FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. BUT AS PER ABOVE DISC USSION THERE IS NO SUCH CLAUSE OF SUBSTITUTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN U/S.4 8 OF THE ACT AND THE GAIN HAS TO BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE ALSO ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT A REFERENCE TO VALUATI ON OFFICER U/S.55A OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET. WE HAVE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT SECTION 48 IS THEREFORE OUT OF THE SCOPE OF VALUATION MADE U/S.55A BECAUSE CAPITAL GAIN IS TO BE TAXED ON THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF ASSET. WE HEREBY ALSO OPIN E THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET IF THE AO IS OF THE OPINION T HAT VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IS REQUIRED BUT SUCH REFERENCE CAN BE MADE ONLY TO AS CERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE THEREFORE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 55A(B)(II) IS ALSO LIMITED ONE. WE HAVE READ SECTION 50C ALONGWITH THESE CONNECTED SECTIONS AND THEN ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO REFER FOR VALUATION OF A CAPITAL ASSET UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS SECTION PROV ISION OF SECTION 50C WHERE HE HAS FOUND THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS LESS T HAN THE STAMP DUTY. WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THERE IS A FINDING ON FACTS THAT THE CONSIDERATION IS NOT LESS THAN THE STAMP DUTY. ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT T HE JANTRI RATE AS PER THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY WAS AT RS.4 500/- AND RS.7 000/- PE R SQ.METER RESPECTIVELY FOR THE PLOT NOS.161/1 & 181/1; WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD SO LD THEM @ RS.41 860/- PER SQ.MTR. THEREFORE WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO REFER TO DVO BECAUSE AS PER SECTION 50C(2) THE AO MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF A CAPITAL ASSET WHERE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE AO THAT THE VALU E ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE O F THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. DUE TO THIS REASON THE VALUATION AS SUGGESTED BY DVO AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS HEREBY REVERSED. IN 27 THE RESULT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS HERE BY UPHELD AND THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. RESULTANTLY ALL THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 12. THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCHES HAS CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. NILOFE R I. SINGH (SUPRA) APART FROM THE OTHER DECISIONS. IN OUR OPINION THIS JUDG MENT IS FULLY APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE FULL VALUE OF CO NSIDERATION CANNOT BE REPLACED BY FAIR MARKET VALUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE ORDERS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH WHICH IS BASED ON THE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER FOR SUBSTITUTING THE FULL VALUE OF CON SIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS NOT SUST AINABLE. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS QUASHED TO THIS EXTENT. 13. SINCE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE SALES CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.11.70 CRORES IS TO BE ADOPTED OR AN AMOUNT OF RS.12 78 79 481 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE STRENGTH OF VALUATION REPORT IS NOT BEFORE US. WE HAVE INFORMED THAT IT IS BEING AGITAT ED IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIE W TO DISTURB THE FIGURE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT PRO CEEDINGS. OUR FINDING IS CONFINED TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.33 47 66 257 DIRECTED TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE 28 OF RS.12 78 79 481 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. THI S AMOUNT OF RS.33 47 66 257 CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED. THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.03.201 2 SD/- SD/- ( K. D. RANJAN ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/03/2012 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR