ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad V. Smt. Shanta Bai, Hyd, Hyderabad

CO 102/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8362 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V RAMANA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: G KALYAN DAS; G PAVAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMB ER ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 : ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05 ASSTT. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD V/S. SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AGLPB 5134 H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.102/HYD/2012 (IN ITA NO.382/HYD/2012) : ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05 SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDER ABAD ( PAN - AGLPB 5134 H) V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD ( CROSS - OBJECTOR ) ( APPELLANT - IN - APPEAL ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.KALYAN DAS & SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V.V.RAMANA RAO DATE OF HEARING 08.1.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.02.2013 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIO N BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) IV, HYDERABAD DATED 30.12.2011 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 2 2. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ADOPTI ON OF FMV AS PER SRO. 3. THE DIRECTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) TO ADOPT FMV OF LA ND AT RS.600 PER SQ. YD AND BUILT UP AREA AT RS.100/- PER SQ.FT. HAS NO BASIS AT ALL. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ANALYSED/BROUGHT OUT A NY INSTANCE OF SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE SAME LOCALITY. 5. .. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER CROSS -OBJECTIONS, BESIDES SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE L IGHT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE, DISPUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE VERY ASSESSABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS THROUGH SPECIFIC GRO UNDS RAISED IN THAT BEHALF. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROP ERTIES DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, SHE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY I NCOME FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE RETURN FIELD BY HER FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, REOPENED THE ASSESSMEN T BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT, BY CALLING UPON THE ASSESSE E TO SUBMIT HER RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSE E FILED A RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,15,726, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.30,000. IN EFFECT, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE SAME INCOME AS WAS DECLAR ED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER EARLIER. IN THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR DETAILS RELATING T O SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COPIES OF SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTIES SOLD . ON PERUSING THE SALE DEED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESS EE IN THE YEAR 1971, HAS PURCHASED LAND ADMEASURING 2000 SQ. YARDS JOINTLY W ITH ONE YAMUNA BAI, AND ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 3 THEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED A MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING HA VING A TOTAL BUILT UP AREA OF 40,000 SQ.FT. THE ASSESSEE IS 50% OWNER OF THE LAND AND BUILDING. AS THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO 1.4. 1981, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.198 1 AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS STATED TO HAV E MADE ENQUIRY WITH THE SRO AND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM S RO ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.20 PER SQ.YARD. SO FAR AS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF BUILT UP AREA IS CONCERNED, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION FROM SRO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.3 0 PER SQ.FT. BY ADOPTING THE AFORESAID FAIR MARKET VALUE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER COMPUTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND DETERMINED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.35,32,440, WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CHALLE NGED THE ADDITION MADE BY PREFERRING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASS ESSEE IN THE FIRST PLACE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT NO CAPITAL GAINS, SUBJECT TO TAX, HAS ARISEN IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE SALE DEEDS WERE NOT MEANT T O BE ACTED UPON AND WERE ENTERED INTO JUST TO SETTLE THE FAMILY DISPUTES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASER, JANARDHAN REDDY, IN FACT, HAS MADE A DE CLARATION BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, EXPRESSING HIS INTENTION TO RELINQU ISH THE RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE C ONSIDERATION RECEIVED, WAS ALSO REFUNDED TO THE PURCHASER. WITH REGARD TO QUA NTIFICATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE T HE CIT(A) THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAIN, GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE SRO CANNOT BE ADOPTED AS THE FMV, SINCE SUCH VALUE AS NO LEGAL SA NCTITY. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED IN 1 971, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ADOPT THE FMV AS ON 1.4.1981 AS THE COS T OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE SRO CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE FMV. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE ASS ESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL INCL UDING THE BENCHES AT HYDERABAD. THE CIT(A) FOUND NO MERIT IN THE PRELIM INARY CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE VERY EXIGIBILITY OF TAX ON THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 4 INSTANT CASE. HE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE SALE DEED THAT THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTION OF THOSE DEEDS WAS FOR SETTLEM ENT OF FAMILY DISPUTES. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE CIT(A) THAT MERE FILING OF DECLARATION BY THE PURCHASER, JANARDHAN REDDY, DOES NOT ALTER THE NAT URE OF THE TRANSACTION CONCLUDED BY THE SALE DEEDS. HE FURTHER HELD THAT FURNISHING OF SUCH DECLARATION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS EXTINGUISHMENT O F RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY SHRI REDDY THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED ENTERED INTO B Y HIM WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE REFUND OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION BY PRODUCING ANY C REDIBLE EVIDENCE. ON THE QUANTIFICATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWI NG THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH IN T HE CASE OF ASHVEN DATLA V/S. ITO IN ITA NO.107/HYD/2010 DATED 29.10.2010 AN D OTHER CASES, HELD THAT MUCH RELIANCE CANNOT BE PLACED ON THE GUIDELIN E VALUE OF SRO WHICH WAS FIXED IN 1976 AND NOT REVISED TILL THE YEAR 1995. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CIT E ANY INSTANCE OF SALE/PURCHASE AT THE RATE SHOWN IN THE BASIC VALUE REGISTER IN THE SAME LOCALITY. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH, WHILE CONSIDERING A CASE OF SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE SAME LOCALITY AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE O F ASHVEN DATLA (SUPRA) HAS ACCEPTED THE FMV OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.750 P ER SQ. YARD. THE CIT(A), KEEPING THE AFORESAID FACT IN VIEW, HELD THAT THE F MV OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 SHOULD BE TAKEN AT RS.600 PER SQ. YARD. S O FARA S THE FMV OF THE BUILT UP AREA IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT I N THE CASE OF SHRI K.PRATAP REDDY IN ITA NO.465/HYD/03, THE ITAT HYDERABAD BEN CH UPHELD THE FMV AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.160 PER SQ.FT., WHEREAS THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THAT FMV AS PER PWD RATE AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS RS.130 PER SQ. F T. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE FMV OF BUILT UP AREA AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.100 PER SQ.FT. A ND COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 5 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CROSS-O BJECTIONS THEREIN. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE RAT ES AS PER SRO, AS IT IS AUTHENTIC. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE RATE OF RS .600 PER SQ. YARD FOR LAND AND RS.100 PER SQ. FT. FOR BUILT UP AREA AS ON 1.4. 1981, IGNORING THE SRO GUIDELINE. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT(A), SUBMITTED IN THE FIR ST PLACE THAT THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE AC TED UPON AND WERE ONLY EXECUTED WITH A VIEW TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES IN THE FAMILY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY UNDER THE SALE DEED, SHRI JANARDHAN REDDY, HAD FILED A DECLARATION BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SALE DEEDS WERE NOT ACTED UPON AND THE ASS ESSEE IS STILL ENJOYING POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY. THE PURCHASER HAS ALS O STATED IN THE DECLARATION THAT HE HAS RELINQUISHED HIS RIGHTS OVE R THE PROPERTY AND AS SUCH, THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN HIS FAVOUR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE PURCHASER WAS AL SO REFUNDED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS PLEADED THAT THE S ALE TRANSACTION IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CANCELLED. AS S UCH, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF THE ALLEGED PURCHASER, THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAINS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED FOR THE DELETION OF THE ENTIRE ADDITION TOW ARDS CAPITAL GAINS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE FACTS OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEEDS BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECLARA TION OF SHRI JANARDHAN ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 6 REDDY FILED BEFORE CIVIL COURT HAVE TO BE READ TOGE THER, WHICH WOULD REVEAL THE ULTIMATE FACT THAT NO TRANSFER OF ANY PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE. HE ALSO RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGINEERING WORKS P. LTD. (198 ITR 297) AND SUBMITT ED THAT NO MATTER CAN BE CONSIDERED DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT. IN THE PRE SENT CASE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE PLACED MUCH EMPHA SIS ON THE SALE DEED, IGNORING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DECLARATION OF THE P URCHASER SHRI JANARDHAN REDDY BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT. THE LEARNED AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. RASIKLAL MANEKLAL HUF (177 ITR 198 ), TO SUBMIT THAT A RELINQUISHMENT TAKES PLACE WHEN THE OWNER WITHDRAWS HIMSELF FROM THE PROPERTY AND ABANDONS HIS RIGHT THERETO. THE LEARNE D AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI JANARDHAN REDDY, THE PURCHASER IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAVING RELINQUISHED HIS RIGHT BY VIRTUE OF THE DECLARATION, NO TRANSFER CAN BE TAKEN TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE PLEADED THAT NO CAPITAL GAINS HAV E ACCRUED TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GROUNDS O F THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL, THAT FMV CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH SRO VALUE , WHICH HAS NO SANCTITY AS THERE HAS BEEN NO REVISION IN THE VALUE FIXED IN 1976 TILL 1995. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED IN KUKATPALLY, VERY NEAR TO THE CITY. THE DISALLOWANCE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE DE CISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASHVEN DATLA V/S. ITO SUBMITTE D THAT IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT KUKATPALLY THRO UGH A REGISTERED VALUER, WHO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE GUIDELINE VALUE O F SRO IN THE YEAR 2006 AT RS.3,700 PER SQ. YARD AND VALUED THE LAND AS ON 1.4 .1981 AT RS.750 PER SQ. YARD, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. THE LEARNED A UTHORISED ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 7 REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE LAND AS PER THE SUB-REGISTRAR AT FATEH NAGAR, BALAN AGAR MANDAL IN THE YEAR 2003-04 WAS RS.4,000 PER SQ. YD. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE VAL UATION CERTIFICATE OF SUB- REGISTRAR, KUKATPALLY PLACED AT PAGE 13 OF THE PAPE R-BOOK. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT IF THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF 2003-04 WOULD BE CONSIDERED, THEN THE FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 WILL BE RS.810 PER SQ. YARD, WHICH IS MORE THAN RS.600 PER SQ. YARD ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE OF BUILT UP AREA AS ON 1.4.1981 IS ALSO REASONABLE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PWD RATE AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS RS.130 PER SQ. FT. 9. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, SUPPORTING THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO ACCRUAL OF CAPITAL GAINS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED TH AT THE EXISTENCE OF SALE DEEDS CLEARLY INDICATES THE FACT OF SALE OF THE PRO PERTIES AND HENCE, ACCRUAL OF GAINS OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS- OBJECTION, AS IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ENTIRE DIS PUTE, VIZ. THE VERY ASSESSABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE SALE OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTIO N WAS THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF JA NARDHAN REDDY FOR A CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, EFFECTIVELY, A TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE WITHIN THE MEANING OF S.2(47) OF THE ACT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE SALE DEEDS HAVE NOT BEEN CANCELLED. HENCE, UNTIL THE CANCELLATION OF TH E SALE DEEDS, THE DECLARATION OF JANARDHAN REDDY RELINQUISHING HIS RI GHT OVER THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE NO MEANING AT ALL. NO MATERIAL HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED BEFORE US, TO ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 8 INDICATE AS TO IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS OR IN WHAT CONT EXT THE SO CALLED DECLARATION WAS FILED BY THE PURCHASER, JANARDHAN R EDDY. THOUGH COPIES OF THE SALE DEED WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US, BUT AS I T APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SALE DEED TO SUGGEST THAT THE SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING FAMILY DI SPUTE, AS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE. HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES NOT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SALE DEEDS, THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE SA LE DEEDS TO SUBSIST FOR SO LONG, SINCE THE SALE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED AS EARLY A S IN THE YEAR 2003. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT JANARDHAN REDDY HAS RELINQUISHE D HIS RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY BY VIRTUE OF THE DECLARATION. BE AS IT MAY , A SALE DEED, WHEN REGISTERED, CONCLUDES THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER O F A PROPERTY, AND THE SUBSEQUENT DECLARATIONS/RELINQUISHMENTS, ETC. ARE O F NO CONSEQUENCE, INSOFAR AS THE DETERMINATION OF ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS IS C ONCERNED. THIS IS SO BECAUSE A REGISTERED SALE DEED HAS BETTER EVIDENTIA RY VALUE THAN A DECLARATION, OR LETTER OF RELINQUISHMENT OR ANY SUC H OTHER DOCUMENT. THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE DO NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. CONSID ERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE UPHOLD TH E FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THERE IS A VALID TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF S.2(47) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN REFUNDED BACK. THIS FACT ALSO REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED BEFORE US. I N THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE I N HER CROSS-OBJECTION. ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED . 11. AS FOR THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APP EAL, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1971 AND AS SUCH, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1.4.1981 HAS TO BE THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS ADOPTED THE FMV AT RS.20 PER SQ. YARD ON THE BASIS OF SRO GUIDE LINE. THE LEARNED ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 9 AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SERI OUSLY OBJECTED TO ADOPTION OF SRO VALUE BY CONTENDING THAT THE SRO V ALUED FIXED IN THE YEAR 1976 HAS NOT BEEN REVISED TILL THE YEAR 1995. THERE FORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FMV. WE AGREE WITH THIS CONTENTION R AISED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER CERTAINLY CANNOT DETERMINE THE FMV BY SOLELY RELYING UPON THE SRO GUIDELINE. HE HAS TO BRING MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THE FACT T HAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY HIM IS THE FMV. WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASHVEN DATLA (SUPRA), FOLLOWING SEVERAL OTHER DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AT HYDERABAD AS WELL AS OTHER BENCHES HELD THAT THE SRO GUIDELINES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE FMV. IN THAT CASE, THE COORDINATE BENCH ACCEPTED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AT RS.750 PER SQ. YARD AS ON 1.4.1981 FOR THE PROPERTY AT KUKATPALLY. THIS CERTAINLY CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A YARDSTICK FOR FINDING OUT THE VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES LAND AS IT IS SITUATED IN THE SAME LOCALITY AT KUKATPALLY. THA T APART, THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, KUKATPALLY, AT PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER-BOOK MENTIONS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE SAME LOCA LITY IN THE YEAR 2003 AT RS.4,000 PER SQ. YARD. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE VAL UE OF RS.20 PER SQ. YARD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT AT ALL ACCE PTABLE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH A COMPUTATION HAS DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US THAT ON THE BASIS OF GUIDELI NE VALUE OF RS.4000 PER SQ. YARD IN THE YEAR 2003, THE FMV OF THE LAND AS O N 1.4.1981 WOULD BE RS.810 PER SQ.YARD. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE M ATTER, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIND OUT THE FMV AS ON 1.4.198 1 ON THE BASIS OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF RS.4000 PER SQ. YARD IN THE YEAR 2003-04, BY APPLYING REVERSE INDEXATION. IF, IN THE AFORESAID PROCESS T HE FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 IS FOUND TO BE MORE THAN RS.600 PER SQ. YA RD, THEN THE RATE OF RS.600 PER SQ. YARD SHOULD BE ADOPTED, AND IF THE C OST OF LAND SO ARRIVED AT IS FOUND TO BE LOWER, THEN SUCH LOWER RATE SHOULD BE ADOPTED. ITA NO.382/HYD/2012 & CO SMT. SHANTA BAI, HYDERABAD 10 12. SO FAR AS THE FMV OF RS.100 PER SQ. FT. FOR BUILT UP AREA ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE SAME TO BE MUCH LOWER THAN THE PWD RATE OF RS.130 PER SQ. FT. AND THE RATE OF RS.150 ACCEPTED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF K.PRATAP REDDY (SUPRA). IN THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFER E WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS RESPECT. 13. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE MODI FY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT, TO THE EXTENT I NDICATED ABOVE, AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN S IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES, AS INDICATED ABOVE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22.02.2013 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED/- FEBRUARY, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. SHANTABAI, D.NO.71 - 1 - 195/2, SESHAMAHAL, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD 2. 3. 4. AS STT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 6(1) HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IV HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, III HYDD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S.