Held that  the Commissioner (Appeals) had not dealt with the merits of the objections of the assessee that there were inherent deficiencies in the piece of land. It was not discernible whether the merits of various objections of the assessee were considered by the Departmental Valuation Officer in his report. It was necessary in the interest of justice that the various objections on the merits of the valuation be dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals). The objections were not the subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer also. The Commissioner (Appeals) was to give opportunity to the Departmental Valuation Officer if he chose to consider the various objections of the assessee and examine how it was dealt with by the Departmental Valuation Officer.  On the issue whether the transfer of development rights would come under the sweep of section 50C, was never raised before the Assessing Officer and the claim of the assessee was without filing the revised return of income. The issue was remitted to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals). Followed Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 451 (SC). (AY.2012-13)