Dr. Vijay P. Jayade, Hubli v. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 766/BANG/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 76621114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN BLETO4675S
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 766/BANG/2010
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Dr. Vijay P. Jayade, Hubli
Respondent ACIT, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-02-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 09-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.766/BANG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 DR. VIJAY P. JAYADE EUREKA TOWERS TRAFFIC ISLAND HUBLI. : APPELLANT VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) HUBLI. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI BALRAM R. RAO ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. AMRITA RANJAN ADDL. CIT(DR) O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) HUBLI IN ITA NO: 56/CIT(A) HBL/07-08 DAT ED: 15.2.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED FIVE GROUNDS IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS CONFINED TO A L ONE GROUND THAT (I) THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS NOT FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCE AND THUS THE AO WAS WRONG IN GOING BY THE GUIDELINE VALUE; ITA NO.766/BANG/10 PAGE 2 OF 9 - THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ONLY RS.5 77.500/- UPON SALE OF HIS SHARE AND THERE BEING NO MATERIAL WITH THE AO TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED EITHER RS.15.15 LAKHS OR RS.13.89 LAKHS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CON FIRMED BY THE CIT (A) WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW; & - WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHEN THE SUBJECT LAND WAS IN DISPUTE AND UNDER LITIGATIO N AND NO BUYERS INVOKING S.50C WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. 3. BEFORE VENTURE TO LOOK INTO THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS BARRED BY LIMITATI ON. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT DATED: 21.10.2010 HAD SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED THAT SINCE HIS WIFE WAS SERIOUSLY ILL DUE TO SEVERE HYPERTENSION AND DIABET IC CONDITIONS HE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF GIVING TIMELY MEDICAL HELP TO HER WHIC H CAUSED DELAY IN PREFERRING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (A). TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE FROM A PHYSICIAN AND ECHO-CARDIOLOGIST AND FERVENTLY PLEAD ED THAT THE DELAY WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR INTENTIONAL AND WAS ONLY OF BON A FIDE REASON BEYOND HIS CONTROL WHICH REQUIRES TO BE CONDONED. 3.1. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE REASONING OF T HE ASSESSEE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS CONDONED AND THE REG ISTRY WAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO PLACE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON RECORD. 4. THE ISSUE IN BRIEF WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL AND A PROFESSOR IN SDM COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND HOSP ITAL FURNISHED HIS RETURN ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.5.69 LAKHS WHICH WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP F OR SCRUTINY. ITA NO.766/BANG/10 PAGE 3 OF 9 4.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALLEGED TO HAVE SOLD A PROPERTY F OR RS.5.77 LAKHS WHICH WAS INVESTED IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION L TD. AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAINS TAX. ON A FUR THER VERIFICATION THE AO FOUND THAT THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY HAD ASSESSED THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.15.15 LAKHS FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C OF THE ACT AND AFTER BRUSHING A SIDE THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THE AO ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.15.15 LAKHS AS THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE WITH THE LD. CIT (A) FOR SOLACE. AFTER GIVING DUE WEIGHT-AGE TO TH E ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS THE LD. CIT (A) HAD OBSERVED THUS 5.1. IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE APP ELLANT EVEN THOUGH HAS DISPUTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE S TAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES BEFORE THE AO STATING THAT THERE WAS IN -CUMBRANCE ON THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF ENCROACHMENT BY THE ADJACENT PLO T OWNER AND THE MATTER BEING SUB- JUDICE THEREFORE THE FAIR MARKE T VALUE OF THE PLOT IS LESS THAN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY (SVA). HOWEVER THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION IN APPEAL OR REVISION AND NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN ANY COURT OR HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE AO MAY HAVE REF ERRED THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION TO A VALUATION OFFICER BUT THIS HAS ALS O NOT BEEN DONE BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF LAW U/S 50C THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROPERTY BEING SUBJECTED TO IN-C UMBRANCE BY WAY OF ENCROACHMENT BY THE ADJACENT PLOT OWNER CANNOT BE A CCEPTED IN TOTO. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY SOL D BY THE APPELLANT IS 4675 SFT AS AGAINST THE SIZE OF THE PLOT OF 5097 SF T AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED OF THIS PROPERTY AS PER THE CITY SURVEY RECORD S. THIS GOES TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS ENCROACHMENT ON THE PROPERTY AND THE APPELLANT AS SUCH COULD RECEIVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION ATTRIBUTABLE T O 4675 SFT OF PLOT OF LAND AS AGAINST 5097 SFT. THEREFORE THE RESULTANT DIFF ERENCE IN VALUE OF RS.125433/- PLEADED AS DEDUCTION BY THE APPELLANT F ROM THE TOTAL VALUE OF RS.15 15 000/- DETERMINED BY THE DVO (SIC) SVA APP EARS TO BE JUSTIFIED. ITA NO.766/BANG/10 PAGE 4 OF 9 THE SAME THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL VALUE OF RS.15 15 000/- AND THE BALANCE VALUE OF RS.13 89 5 67/- DETERMINED BY THE DVO (SIC) SVA AND ADOPTED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF RS.13 89 567/- AS AGAINST RS.15 15 000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ST CG. 6. DISAPPOINTED WITH THE PARTIAL RELIEF GIVEN BY T HE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEES HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. A R REITERATED MORE OR LESS WHAT W AS PORTRAYED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN FURTHERANCE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT - THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS NOT FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCE AND THEREFORE THE AO HAD ER RED IN GOING BY THE GUIDELINE VALUE; - WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPREC IATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ONLY RS.5.77 LAKHS UPON S ALE OF HIS SHARE AND THERE BEING NO MATERIAL WITH THE AO TO SU GGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED EITHER RS.15.15 LAKH S OR RS.13.89 LAKHS THE ADDITION AS MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW; & - WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF DISPUTE THERE WERE NO BUYERS FOR THE SA ID PROPERTY AND THEREFORE FOR SUCH A PROPERTY WHICH WAS ALSO UNDER LITIGATION INVOKING S.50C WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. 6.1. TO BUTTRESS HIS ARGUMENTS FURTHER THE LD. A R HAD FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 TO 83 PAGES WHICH AMONG OTHERS CONSIST OF COPIES OF (I) SALE AGREEMENT DT.10.9.2004 (II) SAL E DEED DT.20.1.2005 (III) MOU DT. 18.1.2005 (IV) COURT JUDGMENT DT.8.1.2003 ETC. 6.2. ON HER PART THE LD. D R HAD SUPPORTED THE ST AND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PASSIONATELY PLEADED THAT NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR AT THIS STAGE. 7. WE HAVE KEENLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS METICULOUSLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTARY ITA NO.766/BANG/10 PAGE 5 OF 9 EVIDENCES ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 7.1. ON A CRITICAL PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALSO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE FOLLOWING CRUCIAL POINTS WERE EMERGED: (I) NO DOUBT THERE WAS AN ALLEGED ENCROACHMENT OF THE NEIGHBOUR OF THE ASSESSEES LAND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD APPROACHED THE COURT FOR RELIEF ; (II) THE HONBLE III ADDL . CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) HUBLI HAD ORDERED ORIGINAL SUIT NO.39/1999 DT: 8.1.2003 [SOURCE: P 39 77 OF PB AR] THAT THE DEFENDANT IS HEREBY DIRECTED BY WAY OF MANDAT ORY INJUNCTION TO REMOVE THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION MADE ALONG THE A.B LINE AS SHOWN IN THE PLAINT HAND S KETCH. CONSEQUENTLY THE DEFENDANT HIS AGENTS AND ALL PER SONS CLAIMING THROUGH HIM ARE HEREBY PERMANENTLY RESTRAI NED FROM MAKING ANY FURTHER CONSTRUCTION ALONG A.B. LINE O F THE SUIT PROPERTY AND FROM INTERFERING IN THE PLAINTIFFS PO SSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTIES. (III) THE ASSESSEES A. RS LETTER DT: NIL TO THE AO [RE FER: P 82 OF PB AR ] ADMITTED THAT FURTHER THE GARAGE OWNER HAD UN - AUTHORIZEDLY CONSTRUCTED THE HUTMENTS FOR HIS WORKE RS AND WE HAD TO APPROACH THE POLICE FOR GETTING VACATED AND REMOVAL OF THE HUTMENTS.. THE ABOVE NARRATIONS MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE GOT MANDATORY INJUNCTION TO REMOVE THE UNAUTHORIZED CON STRUCTION ON HIS LAND FROM THE HONBLE CIVIL COURT OF HUBLI WAY BACK IN 8 .1.2003 AND (II) AS PER HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES LETTER (SUPRA) THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTIONS OF HUTMENTS ETC. GOT REMOVED WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCE AND THUS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THERE WERE NO BUYERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND HE HAD TO MAD E A DISTRESS SALE ETC. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW LACKS CONVICTION. MOREOVER THERE WOULD BE NO ITA NO.766/BANG/10 PAGE 6 OF 9 TAKERS OF THE ASSESSEES ASSERTION THAT THE SUBJE CT LAND WAS IN DISPUTE AND UNDER LITIGATION ETC. 7.2. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT [P 82 OF PB AR] THE ASSESSEE CAN SELL THE PLOT OF ONLY 4675 SFT HOWEVER AS PER THE RECORDS OF THE CITY SURVEY THE SIZE OF THE PLO T IS RECORDED AS 566.3/9 SQ.YARDS. WHICH AMOUNTS TO 5097 SFT. FOR THIS THE SVA HAS ADOPTED A VALUE OF RS.15 15 000/- AS MARKET VALUE. IF THE CORRECT SIZE OF THE PLOT WAS RECORDED IN THE CITY SURVEY RECORDS AS 4675 SFT THE PROPORTIONATE VALUE WOULD HAVE COME TO RS.13 89 567/- AS THE MARKET VAL UE AND NOT RS.15 15 000/-. THUS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.1 25 433/ - WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT O N RECORD TO STRENGTHEN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. HAD IT BEEN SO IN THE NORMAL COURSE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE APPROACHED THE CITY SURVEY AUT HORITIES TO RECTIFY THE DIFFERENCE IF ANY IN MEASUREMENT OF THE SUBJECT P LOT IN ITS [CITY SURVEY] RECORDS? ON THE CONTRARY IN THE MEMORANDUM OF UND ERSTANDING-CUM- AGREEMENT DATED: 18.1.2005 [SOURCE: P 3 -8 OF PB AR ] IT WAS MADE IT UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR UNDER SCHEDULE THAT A NON-AGRICULTURAL OPEN SITE SITUATED IN WARD NO. III VIKASNAGAR HUBLI RESIDE NTIAL PLOTS BEARING CTS NOS.103/B5 AND 103/B6 MEASURING 566 3/9 SQ. YARDS AND 566 3/9 SQ. YARDS RESPECTIVELY AND BOUNDED . 7.3. TO STRENGTHEN HIS ARGUMENTS AGAINST FOR INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C OF THE ACT BY THE AO THE LD. A R HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON A SIMILAR ISS UE PRIMARILY THE FINDING ITA NO.766/BANG/10 PAGE 7 OF 9 OF THE HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR A BENCH REPORTED IN (2010) 45 DTR (JP)(TRIB) 41. WITH DUE RESPECTS WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID FINDING IN ITS ENTIRETY. 7.3.1. IN THIS CONNECTION WE RECALL THE FINDING O F THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.587/BANG/2009 DATED 16.7.2010 [R EPORTED IN [2011] 128 ITD 503 (BANG.) IN THE CASE OF GOULI MAHADEVAPPA V. ITO WHEREIN THE HONBLE BENCH HAD OBSERVED ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THAT 8.10 LET US HAVE A LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF S.50 C OF THE ACT. [SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN 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 BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFER RED TO AS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAY MENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE SO ADOP TED OR ASSESSED SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 BE DEEMED T O BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT O F SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1) WHERE- (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING O FFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORIT Y UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STA MP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1)HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTE D IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE AN Y OTHER AUTHORITY COURT OR THE HIGH COURT ASSESSING OFFIC ER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFIC ER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTI ONS (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)OF SECTION 16A CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AN D 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 19 57 (27 OF 1957) SHALL WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS APPLY IN RELATI ON TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF T HAT ACT. EXPLANATION- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION VALUATION OFFICER SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R)OF S ECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT 1957 (27 OF 1957) ITA NO.766/BANG/10 PAGE 8 OF 9 (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2) WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY SUCH AUTHO RITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER.) AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT [INSERTED BY THE FINA NCE ACT 2002 W.E.F. 1.4.2003] WHICH MAKES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL F OR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSI DERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. THUS THE VALUE SO ADOPTED [RS.36 00 000] FOR THE PURPOSES OF S.48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER . 7.3.2. IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDING OF THE JURISD ICTIONAL TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. A O WAS WITHIN HIS REALM FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C OF THE ACT FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. 7.4. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORD ER UNDER CHALLENGE HAD OBSERVED THAT (AT THE COST OF REPETI TION) 5.1. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PR OPERTY SOLD BY THE APPELLANT IS 4675 SFT AS AGAINST THE SIZE OF THE PL OT OF 5097 SFT AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED OF THIS PROPERTY AS PER THE CITY S URVEY RECORDS. THIS GOES TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS ENCROACHMENT ON THE PROPERT Y AND THE APPELLANT AS SUCH COULD RECEIVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION ATTRIBUTA BLE TO 4675 SFT OF PLOT OF LAND AS AGAINST 5097 SFT. THEREFORE THE RESULTANT DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF RS.125433/- PLEADED AS DEDUCTION BY THE APPELLANT F ROM THE TOTAL VALUE OF RS.15 15 000/- DETERMINED BY THE DVO (SIC) SVA APP EARS TO BE JUSTIFIED. THE SAME THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL VALUE OF RS.15 15 000/- AND THE BALANCE VALUE OF RS.13 89 5 67/- DETERMINED BY THE DVO (SIC) SVA AND ADOPTED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF RS.13 89 567/- AS AGAINST RS.15 15 000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ST CG. ITA NO.766/BANG/10 PAGE 9 OF 9 7.4.1. FOR THE REASONS RECORDED SUPRA (PARA 7.2 ) WE HAVE ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE AO WAS WITHIN HIS DOMAIN T O REWORK THE LTCG AT RS.12 16 524/- ON THE BASIS OF SALE CONSIDERATION O F RS.15 15 000/-. SINCE THE LD. CIT (A) TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW FOR THE REASO N RECORDED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.13 89 567/- WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED/AGITATED TO BY THE REVENUE BY WAY OF A CROSS OBJECTION THIS BENCH HAS BEEN LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO SUSTAIN THE FINDING O F THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 10 TH MARCH 2011. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. C IT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.