Prakash Chand Dwarka Das Huf,, Kanpur vs Assessee

M/s Prakash Chand Dwarka Das, Vs. D.C.I.T. - Range - 1, 11 - Moti Bhawan, Kanpur 52/1, Collectorganj, Kanpur PAN:AADHG9565J (Appellant) (Respondent)

& ITA No.324/LKW/2013

Assessment year:2007 -2008

D.C.I.T. - Range - 1, Vs. M/s Prakash Chand Dwarka Das, Kanpur 11 - Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorganj, Kanpur PAN:AADHG9565J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by Sri Punit Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30/03/2015 Date of pronouncement 30/04/2015

ORDER

PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

These are cross appeals directed against the order of Learned CIT (A) - II,

Kanpur Dated 31.01.2013 for A.Y. 2007 - 2008.

2

2. Brief facts are that the assessee sold a land in this year for a consideration of

Rs. 90 Lacs. Its value for stamp duty purposes was Rs. 205,60,820/-. The A.O.

invoked the provisions of section 50C and adopted this stamp duty value to compute

capital gain. When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT (A), he

obtained report of DVO as per which, fair market value of the property was reported

at Rs. 116.66 Lacs @ Rs. 185/- per Sq. Mtr. But learned CIT (A) held that the rate

should be adopted @ Rs. 206/- per Sq. Mtr. In this manner, he directed the A.O. to

adopt Rs. 206/- per Sq. Mtr. as per which the value comes to Rs. 129,90,360/-.

Now, the revenue is in appeal for part relief allowed by learned CIT (A) and the

assessee is in appeal for part addition confirmed by him.

3. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order. Learned A.R. of

the assessee supported the order of Learned CIT (A) in respect of the relief allowed

by him. Regarding part addition sustained by him, he submitted that in any case,

the value reported by DVO at Rs. 116.66 Lacs should not be exceeded.

4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per sub section

(2) of section 50C, if the matter is referred to DVO, section 16A of Wealth Tax Act,

1957 shall apply. As per sub section (6) of section 16A of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the

assessing officer has to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of

the Valuation officer. Regarding referring the matter to DVO by CIT (A), we do not 3

find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A) because as per a judgment of Hon'ble

Calcutta High Court, even if no request is made by the assessee for referring the

matter to DVO, such reference should be made. As per sub section (6) of section

16A of Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the estimate of DVO is to be adopted. Hence, we hold

that in the facts of the present case, the capital gain should be computed by the

A.O. by adopting the value as per DVO i.e. Rs. 116.66 Lacs. Accordingly, the

grounds of the revenue are rejected and the grounds of the assessee are partly

allowed.

5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

assessee is partly allowed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption

page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA )

Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:30/04/2015

*C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to :

1. The Appellant

2. The Respondent.

3. Concerned CIT

4. The CIT(A)

5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar