JUDGMENT :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. This tax appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the ‘Act’ for short) is at the instance of the revenue, challenging the order dated 22/11/2017, of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat in I.T.A. No.2836/Ahd/2013 for Assessment Year: 2009-10.

2. The facts in brief are, the assessee filed its Return of Income for the A.Y.2009-10, declaring total income of Rs.43,05,447/-. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, noticed that the assessee having 53% share in the property situated at Sachin Surat sold the same at Rs.57,36,000/. The assessee entered in to agreement for sale on 29/03/2008, however, the sale deed was registered on 25/07/2008 i.e. previous year relevant to the A.Y.2009-10. All cheques were cleared in the month of September, 2008 and no payment was realized in A.Y.2008- 09. Thus, entire transaction took place in the financial year 2008-09 (Assessment Year 2009-10). The State Government had given benefit of lower stamp duty valuation to persons, who had purchased stamp paper before 31/03/2008 and registered in the year 2008-09. As per A.O. this benefit was limited to stamp duty payment and could not be extended to applicability of Sec.50C of the Income Tax Act,1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer to ascertain the fair market value, referred the matter to the Department Valuation Officer’s (DVO). He, however rejected the DVO’s report, on the ground that the sale instance of A.Y.2008-09 were considered when the old Jantri rates were prevalent. The Assessing Officer therefore taking into consideration Jantri rates prevalent after 01/04/2008 made an addition of Rs.3,72,57,828/- u/s.50C of the IT Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)” for short). The CIT(A), allowed the appeal of the assessee, by holding that, it is not a case where Section 50C of the Act can be invoked. CIT(A) also observed that the A.O. was not empowered to reject the report of the valuation officer. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had taken the sale consideration at the valuation adopted by the stamp duty authority.

4. Against the order of CIT (A), the department preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order of CIT (A). Challenging the same, present tax appeal is filed proposing the following questions of law:

(A) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision of the Ld CIT(A) of deleting the addition of Rs.3,72,57,828/- u/s 50C of the Act made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts that the Assessing Officer correctly applied Jantri Rates for the F.Y.2008-09 and calculated Short Term Capital Gain as the sale of land was executed during the F.Y.2008-09?”

(B) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision of the Ld CIT(A) of deleting the addition of Rs.3,72,57,828/- u/s.50C of the Act made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts that the Assessing Officer correctly pointed outs defects in the Report of Valuation Officer and estimated value of land as per revised Jantri Rate applicable for F.Y.2008-09 i.e. at the time of registration of deed of the immovable property?”

(C) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal is justified in ignoring the facts brought on record by the AO that the immunity scheme brought by the state Government of lower valuation stamp valuation to people who had purchased stamp papers before 31.03.2008 and made registration after 01.04.2008 is limited to stamp duty payment and cannot be extended to the applicability of Section 50C of the IT Act?”

(D) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the de