IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM ITA No. 94/JP/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07. Late Shri Dhan Singh Bhati, cuke Income Tax Officer, C/o Ajay Somani & Co., Vs. Ward 2(2), Chartered Accountants, Ajmer. 28, Ashok Marg, Ana Sagar Link Road, Ajmer. PAN No. ABYPB 9085 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ajay Somani Revenue by: Shri Raghuvir Singh Dagur (Addl. CIT) Date of Hearing : 30.08.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 23/09/2016. vkns'k@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. appeal filed by legal heir of assessee is directed against order of ld. CIT(Appeals), Ajmer dated 18.11.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That ld. CIT (A) Ajmer has erred in law and on facts in ignoring crucial fact that deceased appellant was 50% owner of property (other 50% pertained to his brother). Deemed full value of Consideration under section 50C should be only Rs. 54,45,575/-. 2. That learned Cit (A), Ajmer has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming amendments in valuation of property at Rs. 1,08,91,151/- without waiting for finalization of issues pending before Rajasthan Tax Board and Civil Courts regarding valuation of transferred property and its validity. 2 ITA No. 94/JP/2014 Late Shri Dhan Singh Bhati. 3. That without prejudice e to 1 and 2 above, ld. CIT (A) Ajmer has in his orders erred in law and facts in not considering that value adopted by stamp valuation officer ought to be lesser considering :- Litigations as regards ownership. Disputes with 5 tenants and court cases. Property not in vacant possession of sellers was possessed by purchaser. Social Prestige and transaction in nature of Family transaction. Undue influence in nature of Right of Pre Emption of purchaser due to will of late Sh. Ramsingh. 4. That ld. CIT (A), Ajmer has failed to ensure proper valuation of sold property. departmental valuation request of deceased appellant u/s 50C(2) has not been accepted by ld. AO in its true sense. valuation report on record Approved Valuer has been ignored. Ld. AO and CIT (A) have not considered specific circumstances and Stereotype thinking has led to unjustified valuation. 5. That appellant carves to add, amend, and alter any of grounds before or at time of appellate hearing. death of assessee and subsequent death of wife by sympathetically considered. 2. Briefly stated facts are that this is second round of litigation. In earlier round of litigation, ld. CIT (A) has directed AO to adopt sale value of property at Rs. 27,00,000/- declared in respect of property known as Nanki Bhawan. However, ld. CIT (A) gave liberty to AO to change value in accordance with order of I.G. Stamps. Admittedly, assessee has not challenged order of ld. CIT (A) dated 28.3.2011. Pursuant to order dated 28.03.2011, AO passed impugned assessment order under section 155(15) 3 ITA No. 94/JP/2014 Late Shri Dhan Singh Bhati. thereby adopted revised value at Rs. 1,08,91,151/- and computed long term capital gain at Rs. 70,69,482/-. Against this order, assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering submissions dismissed appeal vide order dated 18.11.2013. 3. first ground of assessee is against fastening liability of entire long term capital gain on assessee. ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that assessee is 50% owner of property and as such even if capital gain is to be computed against assessee, it should be only to extent of 50% of such value. 3.1. On contrary, ld. D/R submitted that this issue is not arising out of impugned order. He submitted that issue has attained finality as assessee had not filed any appeal against computation of capital gain and making assessee liable for such tax. He further submitted that even from Sale Deed executed by assessee as enclosed at paper book pages 72 & 73, it can be inferred that property in question came to assessee by way of Will dated 26th September, 1996 and assessee has also got probate of this Will. Therefore, assessee cannot blow hot and cold. 3.2. We have heard rival contentions, perused material available on record and gone through orders of authorities below. Admittedly, this issue does not arise from impugned order. In earlier round of litigation, ld. CIT (A) had directed AO to revise value of property as and when revised by I.G. Stamps. AO in pursuance of that order, revised value of property. It is also not in dispute that assessee had not challenged order dated 28th March, 4 ITA No. 94/JP/2014 Late Shri Dhan Singh Bhati. 2011. Hence subject matter of assessment was to extent of valuation of property, and not ownership of property. But it is also settled position of law that if person is not liable for tax, merely because he has not claimed otherwise, that should not give licence to Assessing Authority to make person liable for entire value of property. assessee has not filed copy of Will dated 26.09.1996. Therefore, in interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore issue of ownership of property and liability of assessee, to file of AO for fresh decision. In event AO finds that ownership of entire property i.e. Nanki Bhawan or Nangi Bhawan, at Prakash Road, Nagra, Ajmer was bequeathed by father of assessee in favour of assessee, he would decide issue accordingly as owner of entire property. However, in case he finds other-wise in terms of Will related to this property, he would consider same and decide accordingly. This ground of assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Grounds no. 2 to 4 relate to valuation of property. ld. Counsel for assessee vehemently argued that authorities below have not considered facts of case in right perspective. He submitted that authorities below have failed to appreciate that there was litigation is going on as regards ownership, disputes with 5 tenants and court cases, property was not in vacant possession of sellers was possessed by purchaser, undue influence in nature of Right of pre Emption of purchaser due to Will of late Shri Ram singh. It is further contended that departmental valuation request of deceased appellant under section 50C(2) has not been accepted by AO. Valuation Report on record of approved 5 ITA No. 94/JP/2014 Late Shri Dhan Singh Bhati. valuer has been ignored, and authorities below have not considered specific circumstances. 4.1. On contrary, ld. D/R has opposed submissions. He submitted that issue does not arise from impugned order and now assessee cannot take this issue as in earlier round of litigation this issue has already been settled. assessee has not filed any appeal against this. 4.2. We have heard rival contentions and perused material available on record. Undisputedly, in earlier round of litigation issue of valuation was decided by ld. CIT (A). asessee has not filed any appeal against such order. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in order of ld. CIT (A), same is hereby affirmed. These grounds raised in this appeal are rejected. 5. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in open court on 23/09/2016. Sd/- Sd/- ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) Accountant Member Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 23/09/2016. Das Copy of order forwarded to: s 1. Appellant- Late Shri Dhan Singh Bhati, Ajmer. 2. Respondent ITO Ward 2(2), Ajmer. 3. CIT(A). 4. CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 94/JP/2014) By order, Assistant. Registrar 6 ITA No. 94/JP/2014 Late Shri Dhan Singh Bhati. Late Shri Dhan Singh Bhati v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Ajmer