This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.2.2016 of the learned CIT(A)-22, New Delhi, having concurrent jurisdiction of CIT(A), Indore.

2. The only ground taken by the assessee in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming Shrichand Makhija Indore ITA No. 426/Ind/2016 2 the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.3,89,750/- by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee sold agricultural land situated at village Tejpur Gadbadi, Tehsil Indore which was in the joint name of Shri Pankaj Makhija for Rs.10,79,500/- (market value) on 6.8.2005 but in the return of income the assessee has taken sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- (1/2 share) for the calculation of long term capital gain. After indexation, the assessee has shown Rs. 30,475/- as income from long term capital gain in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer while considering the case of the assessee calculated the long term capital gain on agricultural land at Rs.4,20,225/- whereas in the computation filed, the assessee has shown the same at Shrichand Makhija Indore ITA No. 426/Ind/2016 3 Rs.30,475/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added Rs.3,89,750/- to the total income of the assessee.

4. Being aggrieved with the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) considering the facts of the case and the submissions of the assessee, confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. Before me, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition without any basis. He submitted that the Assessing Officer, who is not a technical expert, instead of estimating the long term capital gain himself, should have Shrichand Makhija Indore ITA No. 426/Ind/2016 4 referred the matter to the DVO for valuation of agricultural land. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Meghraj Baid vs. ITO; (2008) 114 TTJ (d) 841.

6. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the long term capital gain as calculated in the case by them is fully justified.

7. I have heard both the sides. After considering the arguments of both the sides, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was not an expert in calculating the value of the agricultural land sold and as such it was incumbent upon him to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation of the same. A similar issue was decided by Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Meghraj Baid vs. ITO; (2008) Shrichand Makhija Indore ITA No. 426/Ind/2016 5 114 TTJ (d) 841 wherein the Assessing Officer was directed to refer the issue to the DVO. Considering this aspect of the matter, I direct the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the DVO for calculation of the sale of agricultural land and accordingly compute the long term capital gain thereon. I order accordingly.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in open Court on 8 th June, 2016 Sd/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER 8 th June, 2016 Dn/- Shrichand Makhija Indore ITA No. 426/Ind/2016 6