LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक �यायपीठ �यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक �यायपीठ �यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.335/CTK/2024 (िनधा�रण िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� िनधा�रण वष� वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) वष� Lalit Kumar Jalan, Vs ITO,WARD-1(1),Cuttack Jalan Pharmaceuticals, Jaunliapatty, Manik Ghosh Bazar, Cuttack,Odisha PAN No. : AATPJ 3927 A (अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� /Appellant) अपीलाथ� (��यथ� ��यथ� ��यथ� / Respondent) ��यथ� .. िनधा�रती क� िनधा�रती क� ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee by िनधा�रती िनधा�रती क� क� ओर ओर : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA राज�व राज�व क� राज�व राज�व क� क� ओर क� ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue by ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/10/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.06.2024, passed in appeal No.NFAC/2017-18/10047064 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065429730(1) for the assessment year 2018-2019, on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter. amend, modify, substitute, delete and or rescind all or any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises. The Appeal may be allowed & justice rendered. 2 That the Ld. Assessing officer is unjustified and unlawful by not considering the reasons submitted for fair market value of the land being low as compared to the stamp duty value and referring the case to the valuation officer at the last moment that too after the objection by the appellant and passing the order without waiting for the report simply shows that the Ld AO has not properly applied the provisions of law which is unlawful and unjustified. 3. The Ld. AO is wrong in facts and law by completing the assessment by adopting the stamp duty value and not waiting

2 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

for the valuation report. Moreover, the Ld AO should at the very first instance before invoking the provisions of section 50C and preparing the draft assessment order should have referred the case to the valuation officer, as the appellant in his very first submission in response to notice u/s 142(1), had stated that the stamp duty value adopted by the authority is much more than the fair market value of the property. 4 That the Ld. CIT (A) summarily dismissed the case disregarding the material on record, i.e. statement of facts and grounds of appeal which was placed before him, and other provisions of law applicable. Under this situation, the order of CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal and unlawful and not dealing with points so raised before him on merits. 5. That the Ld. AO and the Ld.CIT(A) both are wrong on the facts and law of the case. 6. That the appellant now requests you to adjudicate the case on its merit, as per the provisions of the law.

of property as adopted by stamp authorities and as per the sale

consideration, therefore, the same are canvassed together for the sake of

convenience.

filed his return of income declaring income from business and long term

capital gain from sale of immovable property. During the year under

appeal, the assessee has sold land for a total consideration of

Rs.17,64,150/-, through ten sale deeds separately executed and after

claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.12,03,248/- had offered

Rs.5,60,902/- as long term capital gain. The AO by observing that the

stamp value authority has valued the said property at Rs.1,15,51,737/-

and, thus, show caused as to why the sale consideration should not be

substituted to Rs.1,15,51,737/- as against Rs.17,64,150/- declared by the

3 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

assessee in terms of Section 50C of the Act. In reply to this, assessee has

objected the stamp duty value adopted by the authorities and requested

the AO for referring the matter for valuation before the District Valuation

Officer (DVO). The AO accordingly referred the matter to the DVO and

since at the time of completion of the assessment no such report was

received from the DVO, the AO has made the addition by substituting the

sale consideration at the value adopted by the stamp value authorities

instead of actual sale consideration received by the assessee and

calculated the long term capital gain accordingly. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A)

confirmed the action of the AO, therefore, the assessee is in appeal

before us.

has raised serious objections against the value adopted by the stamp duty

authorities and stated that the land in question could not be sold at the

price higher than the agreed consideration due to various negative factors

attached to it which were not considered by the AO. The ld.AR brought

our attention to the order of ld. CIT(A) where in para 3, the contentions

raised by the appellant were reproduced. The assessee has stated four

reasons as to why the land was sold at a lower price, which are (i) the

land was situated at a far distance from the main city of Cuttack, (ii) no

basic facilities such as water supply or the electricity was available there,

(iii) the land was not directly connected with any proper road when the

sale was made and this fact could also be verified from the map and (iv)

the land was low lying and meshy and substantial amount has to spend to

4 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

brought it to a habitable condition. Since the assessee was urgent need of

funds therefore, he had sold the land under distress and the buyers had

discounted the market price after considering the above negative factors

attached to the land. However, the stamp authorities had ignored all these

factors and valued the property solely based on the circle rate and no

concession was given towards these negative factors. The AO after

receiving the objections from the assessee towards the value adopted by

stamp duty authorities, in terms of the provisions of section 50C(2) has

made reference to the valuation officer to determine/ estimate the fair

market value as on the date of transfer. However, till date no report was

submitted by the valuation officer. Ld. AR submitted that though no time

limit is provided in section 50C for the valuation officer to submit the report

however, section 142A of the Act which also contain the provisions of

valuation of assets including capital asset by valuation officer, where sub-

section (6) provides limitation of six months from the end of the month

when the reference was made to valuation officer to submit his report to

the AO. According to ld. AR. the valuation officer has not submitted any

report even till today, any report submitted now must be held as barred by

limitations in view of the provisions of section 142A(6) of the Act. He also

submits that non submission of the report by the DVO would also lead to

the conclusion that the sale consideration declared by the assessee is fair

and reasonable and DVO has nothing contrary to report on the negative

factors brought on record by the assessee, therefore, no report was

submitted by him. Under these circumstances the sale consideration

5 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

declared by the assessee deserves to be taken as the fair market value

for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. He, accordingly requested for

deletion of additions made by the AO.

the authorities below and submitted that the reference was made u/s.50C

of the Act whether there is no such limitation is provided for submitting of

valuation report within the period of six months and the provisions of

Section 142A(6) of the Act are not applicable in the present case. He

accordingly prayed for the confirmation of the additions made by the lower

authorities. Alternatively, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the AO and CIT(A)

have also observed in the order that in the event the DVO’s report was

received at a later stage where the sale consideration determined by the

DVO is less than the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities,

necessary relief would be allowed to the assessee, therefore, there is no

harm to the assessee if the report of DVO would be come at a later stage.

available on record. In this case, admittedly, the value adopted by the

stamp duty authorities was challenged by the assessee in terms of

Section 50C(2) of the Act and the AO has also referred the matter to the

DVO for computing the fair market value as on the date of sale for the

purpose of computing long term capital gain. It is also a matter of fact that

till date the DVO has not submitted any report on such reference. On

specific query to the ld. AR by the Bench that as to whether any

communication is received from the DVO for submission of the requisite

6 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

details of the properties sold, it was replied by the ld. AR at Bar that no

communication was received by the assessee till date. It is also seen that

assessee has explained various reasons as to why such land was sold at

a lower rate which are reproduced herein above however, none of the

said reason was answered nor considered by AO nor by stamp duty

authorities and since the report of DVO is not yet received, we are unable

to comment about the stand taken by DVO on such factors. Before going

further, we need to examine the provisions of section 50C of the Act, as

existed at that point of time, which reads as under:

50C. Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer: Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed on or before the date of the agreement for transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where- (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section

7 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

(1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, Court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16-A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23-A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34- AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16-A of that Act. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. 7. Sub-section (1) of section 50C of the Act applies where the

consideration received or accrues as a result of transfer by an assessee

of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less that the value

adopted or assessed by any authority of the State Government i.e. stamp

valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of

such transfer. In that case, the value so adopted or assessed shall, for the

purposes of computing capital gains u/s 48, be deemed to be the full

8 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such

transfer.

assessed by the stamp valuation authority referred in sub-section (1)

during the course of assessment proceedings and stated that such value

exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of the

transfer, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset

to a Valuation Officer. Sub-section (2) further provides that where any

such reference is made, the provisions of sub-section (2), (3), (4), (5) and

(6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (6) and

(7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of sec. 24, 34AA, 35 and 37 of the

Wealth Tax Act, 1957, shall, with necessary modifications, apply in

relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by

the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.

to the Valuation Officer. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of section 16A provide for

the mode and manner in which the value of an asset is to be estimated.

Sub-section (6) of provides that on receipt of an order under sub-section

(3) or sub-section (5) from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer

shall, so far as valuation of the asset in question is concerned, proceed to

complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of the Valuation

Officer. Accordingly, once a reference is made u/s 50C of the Act to the

Valuation Officer for valuation of the capital asset, the Assessing Officer is

obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate made

9 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such reference made by him.

However, nowhere in the Wealth Tax Act nor in section 50C any time limit

is provided for valuation officer to submit the report to the AO. It must be

within reasonable time frame and should not be delayed as has been

done in the present case.

by the AO on 22.03.2021, no report is submitted by the valuation officer to

the AO till date and assessment order was passed by AO by replacing the

sale consideration as declared by the assessee with the value determined

by stamp value authority though the same was already challenged by the

assessee. Thus the assessee was asked to pay the taxes on the amount

of capital gains which is subject to modifications based on the report of

the valuation officer that has never come and under these circumstances

the capital gains as computed by the AO has not attained the finality even

on the part of the AO and the assessee was asked to pay the taxes on

such provisional amount of capital gains. As per sub-section (3) to section

50C, the assessee is liable to pay capital gains tax when the valuation

officer has valued the capital asset at the price more than the value

determined by the stamp authorities. Since till date no report is submitted

nor any time limit is provided in section 50C of the Act, assessee should

not be punished for such an inordinate delay of almost 4 years which is

solely attributable to the valuation officer and is beyond the control of the

assessee.

10 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

the limitation in submitting the report by valuation officer to the AO. For

this before taking resort to the provisions of General Clauses Act or

Limitation Act, we have to examine whether any time limit is provided

under any other section of Income Tax Act for submission of the valuation

report. As per the Income Tax Act, 1961 other sections where reference

to valuation officer could be made for estimate the value of asset are

section 43CA, 55A and 142A. Provisions of section 43CA are as under:

43CA. Special provision for full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer.

Provided that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty does not exceed one hundred and five per cent. of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under sub-section (1). (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred to in sub-section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer on the date of the agreement.

11 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

(4) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account on or before the date of agreement for transfer of the asset. Provisions as contained in section 55A reads as under :

55A. Reference to Valuation Officer. 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 claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer, if the Assessing Officer is of opinion that the value so claimed is less than 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 asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as so claimed or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or

(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 provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16-A, clauses (ha) and (i) of sub- section (1) and sub-sections (3-A) and (4) of section 23, sub- section (5) of section 24, section 34-AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16-A of that Act.

Explanation. - In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)

Provisions as contained in section 142A reads as under :

142A. (1) The Assessing Officer may, for the purposes of assessment or reassessment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him. (2) The Assessing Officer may make a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee.

12 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

(3) The Valuation Officer, on a reference made under sub- section (1), shall, for the purpose of estimating the value of the asset, property or investment, have all the powers that he has under section 38A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).

(4) The Valuation Officer shall, estimate the value of the asset, property or investment after taking into account such evidence as the assessee may produce and any other evidence in his possession gathered, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

(5) The Valuation Officer may estimate the value of the asset, property or investment to the best of his judgment, if the assessee does not co-operate or comply with his directions.

(6) The Valuation Officer shall send a copy of the report of the estimate made under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, to the Assessing Officer and the assessee, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which a reference is made under sub-section (1).

(7) The Assessing Officer may, on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making the assessment or reassessment.

Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)"

that section 43CA deals with the valuation of all the assets other than

capital assets and other provisions of section 50C are applicable. Section

55A can be invoked where estimation of fair market value of a capital

asset is required for the purposes of chapter relating to capital gains in

those cases where provisions of section 50C are not applicable. Section

142A can be invoked for estimation of value including fair market value of

an asset, property or investment for the purposes of assessment or

reassessment. As per the scheme of the Income Tax Act, Section 50C

13 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

and 55A are special provisions for determination of the fair market value

of capital asset for computing capital gains whereas section 142A is a

general provision for estimation of value of any asset, property or

investment for the purposes of assessment / reassessment. Therefore,

the scope of section 142A is very vide which also includes reference to

valuation officer for valuation to compute capital gains. Since sections

50C and 55A are special provision applicable for estimation of fair market

value of a capital asset to compute capital gains, thus, as per the

maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant, special provision will

prevail over general provision and, therefore, where the issue is of

computation of capital gains, for estimating the value of a capital asset,

reference to DVO can be made only u/s 50C or 55A of the Act, as the

case may be, and not u/s 142A. However, from the perusal of all the four

sections viz. 43CA, 50C, 55A and 142A of the Act, it can be seen that

except in section 142A, in none of the other section i.e. 43CA, 50C and

55A time limit is provided by the Act to the valuation officer for submission

of valuation report to the assessing officer. As per section 142A(6) it is

mandatory for the valuation office that he shall submit the report to the

assessing officer within a period of six months from the end of the month

in which the reference was made. Thus for the limited purpose on the

issue of limitation for submission of the valuation report by the valuation

officer, time limit as provided in sub-section (6) of section 142A of the Act

could be considered as a guiding factor in other sections where a refence

is made to the valuation office to determination the fair market value etc.,

14 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

even though it is not a special provision for the purpose of computing

capital gains. This can be done only in the special circumstances where

the valuation officer has delayed in submitting the report for indefinite time

period such as in the instant case where after making refernce on

22.03.2021 by the AO till date i.e. after expiry of more than three and half

year, no report is submitted. Nor the valuation officer has even bothered

to communicate with the assessee or the assessing officer to collect the

relevant details necessary for the purpose of valuation of the subject

capital assets sold by the assessee. To our view any report submitted by

the valuation officer after such an inordinate delay should be held as time

barred and no cognizance of the same should be taken even where the

reference is made u/s 50C of the Act. The Hyderabad bench of Tribunal

in the case Shri Zulfi Revdjee vs. ACIT in ITA No.

2415/Hyd/2018 reported in [2019] 75 ITR (Trib.) 219 (Hyd.) vide its order

dt. 05-09-2019 has held that it is mandatory for the Valuation Officer to

submit the Valuation Report within six months from the date of receipt of

the reference, delay in filing the report cannot be condoned. The relevant

observations of the bench are as under:

15 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

beyond a period of 15 months. Whether this period can be enlarged or condoned is to be seen. As rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the word used in sub-section 6 of section 142A is "shall" and in other sub sections, the word used is "may". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of B.K. Khanna & Co. vs Union Of India And Others on 14 September, 1984 (Supra) has clearly held that where the words "may" and "shall" are used in various provisions of same sections, then both of them contain different meaning and the word "shall" shall mean "mandatory". As argued by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the AO was required to call for a report from the valuation officer within six months from the date of the reference and the valuation officer was bound to give such a report with such prescribed period. Further, as seen from the assessment order, the AO had directed the valuation officer to give the valuation of the property as on 8.2.2010, whereas the valuation officer has given the report as on the date of the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the DVO has clearly not followed the directions of the AO and also not followed the timeline fixed under the Act. When it is mandatory for an officer to follow the timeline prescribed under the Act, such delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the report of the Valuation Officer has to be filed within the time given u/s 142A(vi) of the Act and therefore, the assessment order passed on the basis of such report of Valuation Officer beyond the time limit is not sustainable. Therefore, we allow the assessee's appeal and the assessment order is set aside.

who after making refence to the valuation officer on 22.03.2021 has not

bothered to communicate with the valuation officer to find out the status of

the action taken by him on the reference made. While inserting the time

limits in section 142A, the spirit of the law was to restrict the revenue

authorities from playing arbitrarily and unscrupulously. Under these

circumstances the assessee should not be punished for the lapses on the

part of the valuation officer who has not submit the valuation report even

after expiry of such a long period. Also the AO who has computed the

capital gains in the hands of the assessee by taking sale consideration at

the value taken by stamp authorities by ignoring the fact that the same

was only indicative price computed for charging the stamp duty and since

16 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

the assessee has objected the same, it cannot be taken for charging

capital gains tax. Under these circumstances, looking to the peculiar facts

of the case and also keeping in the mind the circumstances under which

the assessee was compelled to sale the said property at a lower rate, we

are of the considered view that the sale consideration received by the

assessee in terms of the registered sale deed should be taken for

computing the capital gains. Further, we are not inclined to accept the

contention of the ld. Sr. DR that the assessee would be given credit on

the basis of the DVO’s report as and when the said report was received

as it tantamount to delay the justice for indefinite time period. This will give

the AO enhanced period for making the assessment in their own way.

When the valuation officer is guilty of breach of the law by not submitting

the valuation report within a reasonable time period thus for the breach of

all such legal provisions, the lower authorities should not get some

premium by enhancing the limitation period by leaving the assessment

open with such condition for indefinite period. We are live to the issue that

though the interest of revenue is vital, such interest cannot override

considerations of probity and fairness in tax governance. A fair tax regime

where no assessee is harassed is equally crucial. The reference was

made to the valuation officer on 22.03.2021 and thereafter the

assessment was completed on 18.04.2021 as by making reference of

limitation for completing the assessment, the same cannot be extended

now solely for want of the valuation report, at the same time, necessary

steps should have been taken by the concerned officials to ensure that

17 ITA No.335/CTK/2024

the report from the office of the valuation officer should reach to the office

of the AO within a reasonable time period which both the lower authorities

have miserably failed to do. If we allow the AO to modify the order after

the receipt of the report from the valuation officer which otherwise is

barred by limitations such action would not only reward the revenue with

an enhanced limitation period but embolden unscrupulous tax officials to

manipulate orders or otherwise mistreat the assessee. Therefore, we

delete the addition made by AO who computed the amount of capital

gains by taking Rs.1,15,51,737/- being the value taken by stamp

authorities as sale consideration as against Rs.17,64,150/- as declared by

the assessee and we direct accordingly.

given hereinabove.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17/10/2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (MANISH AGARWAL) �याियक सद�य �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य कटक कटक Cuttack; �दनांक Dated 17/10/2024 कटक कटक Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- 1. Lalit Kumar Jalan, Jalan Pharmaceuticals, Jaunliapatty, Manik Ghosh Bazar, Cuttack,Odisha ��यथ� / The Respondent- 2. ITO,WARD-1(1),Cuttack आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयु� / CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक कटक / DR, ITAT, 5. कटक कटक आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार Cuttack गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक अिधकरण कटक कटक/ITAT, Cuttack कटक