Stamp valuation and pre-amendment section 55A governed capital gains computation, with partial relief on historical valuation.

Section 50C was applied to substitute the stamp valuation as the full value of consideration for long-term capital gains because the assessee had already challenged the stamp valuation in appeal and revision, so the conditions for relief under section 50C(2) were not met; the factual objection on TDR valuation was also rejected. On fair market value as on 1 April 1981, the pre-amendment section 55A did not permit reference to the District Valuation Officer merely because the Assessing Officer considered the assessee's declared value excessive, and the registered valuer's figure was accepted following Puja Prints. The stamp valuation issue was sustained, while the 1 April 1981 valuation was accepted at the assessee's figure, giving partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the sale consideration for computation of long-term capital gains could be substituted by the stamp valuation where the assessee had challenged the stamp valuation in appeal and revision, including the objection regarding TDR valuation; (ii) whether the fair market value as on 1 April 1981 should be taken on the basis of the assessee's registered valuer's report or the District Valuation Officer's report and whether reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid under section 55A.

Issue (i): whether the sale consideration for computation of long-term capital gains could be substituted by the stamp valuation where the assessee had challenged the stamp valuation in appeal and revision, including the objection regarding TDR valuation

Analysis: Section 50C deems the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority to be the full value of consideration where the declared consideration is lower. The statutory relief under section 50C(2) is available only when the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that the stamp value exceeds fair market value and the stamp valuation is not disputed in any appeal or revision before another authority. On the facts, the assessee had already disputed the stamp valuation before the statutory authorities and the High Court, so the conditions for section 50C(2) were not satisfied. The contention that TDR was valued at 100 per cent was also rejected as a finding of fact, the record showing that the relevant value had been taken at 60 per cent.

Conclusion: The adoption of the stamp valuation as the full value of consideration was upheld, and the assessee's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): whether the fair market value as on 1 April 1981 should be taken on the basis of the assessee's registered valuer's report or the District Valuation Officer's report and whether reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid under section 55A

Analysis: The issue was governed by the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 55A. The assessee had declared a value higher than the fair market value and relied on a registered valuer's report. In that situation, the pre-amendment provision did not permit reference to the District Valuation Officer merely because the Assessing Officer considered the assessee's value excessive. The Bombay High Court decision in Puja Prints was followed, and the assessee's valuation was accepted.

Conclusion: The fair market value as on 1 April 1981 was directed to be taken at the assessee's registered valuer's figure, and the District Valuation Officer's valuation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the valuation as on 1 April 1981, while the stamp valuation adopted for the sale consideration was sustained, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 50C applies where the stamp value is adopted and the assessee has not kept the matter outside appeal or revision so as to attract subsection (2), whereas section 55A, as it stood before amendment, did not authorise a reference to the valuation officer when the assessee's declared value exceeded fair market value.

---