(Per : Honourable Ms.Justice Harsha Devani) — 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the appellant revenue has called in question the order dated 12.6.2015 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench Ahmedabad in ITA No.2309/Ahd/2011 by proposing the following question, stated to be a substantial question of law :-
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,44,83,495/- made on account of capital gain on the basis of valuation of asset by DVO?"
2. The assessment year is 2008-2009 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2007- 2008. The assessee, who is assessed in the status of an individual, filed return of income on 31.7.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 7,27,25,205/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs. 9,72,08,700/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee derived income from long term capital gain and other sources. He made reference to the valuation cell of the Income Tax Department to determine the fair market value of two plots of land bearing survey No.14 and 15 as on 31.3.2008. The Valuation Cell submitted a valuation report whereby it determined the fair market value of Plot No.14 at Rs. 10,49,04,000/- instead of Rs. 8,04,20,506/- as declared by the assessee. Insofar as valuation of the plot bearing survey No.15 is concerned, there was no change in the valuation. The Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee by considering the sale price of the plot bearing survey No. 14 at Rs. 10,49,04,000/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who observed that if the stamp duty valuation is higher than the amount declared by the assessee, the same has to be considered as a fair market value and if the valuation arrived at by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) was less than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority, the fair market value is to be taken as the value by the DVO. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that as the assessee had declared the market value of Rs. 8,04,20,506/- which was higher than the stamp duty valuation, it was not necessary to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. He, accordingly, set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal but did not succeed.
3. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, senior advocate, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds stated by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and submitted that the appeal requires consideration on the question as proposed or as may be formulated by the court.
4. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee showed the value of the plot bearing survey No.14 at Rs. 8,04,20,506/-. It is an admitted position that the price of the land, as valued by the assessee, was more than the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. Section 50C of the Act is a special provision for full value of consideration in some cases. Subsection (1) of section 50C of the Act provides that 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 (hereinafter in the section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the 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. Thus, what the section provides is that if any land or building or both are transferred at a value less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority shall be considered to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Thus, the condition precedent for resorting to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 50C of the Act is that the land or building should have been transferred for a lesser consideration than that adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority. Adverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly the valuation made by the assessee exceeds the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. The condition precedent for invoking sub-section (1) of section 50C of the Act is, therefore, clearly not satisfied. Consequently, there was no question of referring the valuation of the plots in question to the Valuation Officer. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal being in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 50C of the Act, does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law.
5. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.