Income-ta Officer, V. Mr. Meer Jabbar Ali Ahmed Ali, Aurangabad

ITA 1/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7108 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K SRINIVASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Audit objection; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report
• Section: 54F; 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 2264 /P U N/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6 07 SHRI MEER JABBAR AHMED ALI, OPP:SANSKRUTIK MANDAL , KHADKESHWAR, AURANGABAD 431 001 . / APPELLANT PAN: AWQPM6009B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(3), AURANGABD . . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 01 /P U N/20 15 . / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AURANGABD. . / APPELLANT VS. SHRI MEER JABBAR AHMED ALI, OPP:SANSKRUTIK MANDAL, KHADKESHWAR, AURANGABAD 431 001 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AWQPM6009B / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.SRINIVASAN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 24 . 01 .201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 . 02 .201 7 ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 2 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THE CROSS APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE AGAINST ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AURANGABAD, DATED 21 .0 1 .201 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 0 7 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENI ENCE. 3. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 1 48 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THERE TO THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THERE TO THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.47,320/ - . THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT MALAJIP URA AND SILEKHANA, AURANGABAD. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE SALE PRICE AS PER THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AT RS.8,08,72,000/ - . THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ENTIRE PLOT ON 01/04/1981 WAS TAKEN AT RS.5 CRORES AND AFTER INDEXATION THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAINS WORKED OUT TO NEGATIVE. THE ASSESSEE HAD 27% SHARE IN THE SAID LAND. THE WORKED OUT TO NEGATIVE. THE ASSESSEE HAD 27% SHARE IN THE SAID LAND. THE ASSESSE E ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN CITY CHOWK , AURANGABAD . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SAME VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 14 3 (3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT , ORDER DATED 08/03/2013. THEREAFTER, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AURANGABAD TOOK UP THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF ACT AND AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF ACT AND AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 3 RECEIVED RS1,89,00,000/ - AS HIS SHARE IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES INVOLVING SEVERAL LITIGATION. HE, FURTHER, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONSENTING PARTY AND NOT THE OWNER OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN PO SSESS ION OF DISPUTED LAND AS A TENANT. AS PER THE 7/12 EXTRACT DATED 22/06/2005 , ANN EXED NEXT TO THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY LESSEE IN RESPECT OF HIS SHARE AND WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND, THE COST OF ACQUISITION W AS TO BE ADOPTED AT NIL IN VIEW OF SECTION 55(2) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE LANDS WERE GIVEN BY THE ORIGINAL LAND HOLDER TO THE GRAND FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1898 AD IN LIEU OF RS.500 / - AS NAZRANA AMOUNT AND SINCE THEN BY INHERITANCE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SINCE IT HAD LIFE INTEREST IN THE SAID PROPERTY WHICH WAS TRANSFERABLE, THE INCOME WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SA LE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN PURSUANT THERE TO FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS SUBMISSIONS AS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LAND IMPUGNED WAS GIVEN TO HIS GRAN D FATHER BY THE ORIGINAL LAND HOLDER WHO EXECUTED A D OCUMENT OF KAULNAMA IN FAVOUR OF HIS GRAN D FATHER IN THE YEAR 1898 AD IN LIEU OF RS.500 / - AS NAZRANA AMOUNT. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN TH E CIVIL LITIGATION , THE ASSESSEE WAS DECLARED AS TENANT IN POSSESSION OF THE IMPUGNED LAND , BUT HE WAS THE ACTUAL P OSSESSOR OF THE LAND AND HAD ALL THE RIGHTS TO TRANSFER THE SAID LAND. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, BY ADOPTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT NIL. ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 4 4 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55 (2A)( II) AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 49(1) OF THE ACT NOTED THAT IN RESPECT OF MODE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, OPTION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASES, WHERE THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 01/04/1981, THE SUBSTITUTE INDEX ED COST OF VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 01/04/1981 BE ADOPTED . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION OF INDEXED COST OF M ARKET V ALUE OF THE IMPUGNED ASSET AS ON 01/04/1981 . HE FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN IF THE COST OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 01/04/1981 IS TAKEN AT NIL, THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION OF INDEX ED COST OF VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED ASSE T AS ON 01/04/1981. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN MEHAR R. SURTI VS. ITO 2013 40 TAXMANN.COM 138 (MUM) TRIBUNAL. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE HELD TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE. 5 . THE SECOND LINK ED ISSUE DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) NOTED THAT DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO REFER THE IMPUGNED LAND FOR VALUATION BY THE DVO , WHO IN TURN HAD VALUED THE LAND AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.1,45,32,000/ - AS PER VALUATION REPORT DATED 03/07/2014. FURTHER INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM SUB - REGISTRAR THAT THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS RS.92,95,550/ - . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY COURT IN CIT VS. DAULAL MOHATA (HUF) 2014 360 ITR 680 ( BOM ) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO POWER TO REFER THE PROPERTIES FOR VALUATION AS ON ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 5 01/04/1981, IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LESS THAN THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE VA LUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.5 CRORES WAS NOT ON PROPER BASIS AND EVEN THE SUB - REGISTRAR HAD NOT GIVEN THE BASIS FOR ADOPTION OF THE SAID RATES AND HENCE THE REPORT OF DVO WAS CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AT PAGE 20 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ALSO NOTICED THAT THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONSENTED TO CONSIDER THE LAND VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.1,45,32,000/ - DURING THE APPEAL HEARING ON 17/10/2014 A ND TH IS FACT WAS ALS O RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 17/10/2014, IN CONCLUDING PARA THAT THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DVO, NAGPUR MAY KINDL Y BE ACCEPTED. IN VIEW THERE OF THE VALUE OF LAND OF AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS ARRIVED BY THE DVO WAS ACCEPTED. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) , FURTHER, IN CONCLUDING PARA WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND BY REDUCING THE VALUE OF LAND ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO BY FURTHER 25% AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE INCOME FROM THE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING VALUE OF LAND ON 01/04/1981 AT RS. 1,08,99,000/ - , WHERE ASSESSEES 27% SHARE IN THE LAND WORKS OUT TO RS.27,24,750/ - . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT AND COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 6 . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN REDUCING THE COST OF LAND AS ON 01/04/1981 WORKED OUT BY THE DVO, BY FURTHER 25%. ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 6 7 . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 . THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE CIVIL SUIT HAD DECLARED HIMSELF TO BE TENANT IN POSSESSION AND CONSEQUENTLY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COST OF ACQUISITION. THE REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED BY WAY OF GR OUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IN THE WORKING OF THE CAPITAL GAINS BY NOT ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.8.08 CRORES INSTEAD OF RS.7 CRORES CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 9. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION S OF THE A CT AND THE RATIO OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE COST OF ACQUISITION, WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IN RESPECT OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD ADOPTED THE SALE CONSIDERA TION AT RS.7 CRORES, WITH ASSESSEES SHARE AT RS.1.89 CRORES. REGARDING, ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE LIMITED ISSUE WAS THE DEDUCTION IN THE COST OF ACQUISITION BY 25% BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) , WHICH WA S TOTALLY ARBITRARY. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION S AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE DISPUTE ARIS ING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECL ARED SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT AURANGABAD IN WHICH HE HAD 27% SHARE. THE VALUE AS PER THE SALE DEED WAS 7 CRORES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD 27% SHARE THAT IS ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 7 RS.1.89 CRORES. THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY HAD ADOPTED THE VALUE OF LAND AT R S.8.08 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING SALE VALUE AT RS.8.08 CRORES AGAINST WHICH COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS TAKEN AT RS.5 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST ROUND OF ASSESSMENT ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT PURSUANT TO THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECOMPUTED THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT NIL. THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE LIMITED ISSUE WHICH IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE WORKING OF THE COST ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981. 11 . IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE PRESENT CASE , THE P RESENT LAND WAS ALLOTTED ON NAZRANA TO THE ANCESTORS OF THE ASSESSEE IN 1898 AD FOR 99 YEARS ON PAYMENT OF RS.500/ - . THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ANCESTORS W ERE RESIDING AND ENJOYING THE SAID PROPERTIES FOR THE PAST MORE THAN 100 YEARS. THE QUESTION IS WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AND WHERE HIS NAME IS MUTATED IN 7/12 EXTRACT AND ALSO IN THE REVENUE RECORD , WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT OF POSSESSION, ENJOYMENT AND CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY. THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, YES. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO THE CIVIL LITIGATION WITH SOME UN AUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS OF THE LAND AND IT WAS HELD BY THE DISTRICT COURT , THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION, ENJOYMENT AND CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY WERE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND IN WHICH HE HAD 27% SHARE. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT AS PER THE LAND LAWS PREVAILING IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, EVE N IF IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A TENANT , BUT ENJOYING THE PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS , THEN HE IS TO BE TREATED AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, AS PER SECTION 27(II)(B) OF THE IT ACT WHERE THE PERIOD OF ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 8 LEASE IS MORE THAN 12 YEARS , THEN THE LESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. EVEN SECTION 269 UA(F) RECOGNIZE S THE DEEMED OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY , WHERE THE PERIOD OF LEASE IS MORE THAN 12 YEARS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE PERIOD OF LEASE IS MORE THAN 100 YEARS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , WHERE THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE PROPERTY UNDER KAULNAMA ON A LEASE FOR PERIOD OF 99 YEARS FOR CULTIVATION AND PROTECTION FROM SHRI WHAD ALI, S/O . MURAL ALI SHAH FOR SUM OF RS.500 / - AS NAZRANA, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE HELD AS THE DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT CERTAIN AUDIT OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND AT RS.7 CRORES WITH ASSESSEES SHARE AT RS.1.89 CRORES AND COST OF ACQUISITION OF TENANCY RIGHTS AT NIL AND TO CO MPUTE THE C APITAL GAINS AT THE 1.89 CRORES. 12. W HERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY UNDER WILL OR BY SUCCESSION, INHERITANCE ETC. , OR ON DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS ON TOTAL OR PARTIAL PARTITION OF HUF , SECTION 49(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDE S THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSET SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IT . FURTHER, U/S.48 OF THE ACT AN OPTION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE , IN CASES WHERE THE ASSET HAD BEEN ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 01/04/1981 TO SUBSTITUTE THE INDEX ED COST OF VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 01/04/1981 . IN VIEW THEREOF AND APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT , W E UPHOLD THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) I N THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE INDEX ED COST OF VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981. THE SAID PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED BY RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MEHER R. VS. ITO (SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND RELEVANT EXTRACT ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 11 TO 14 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE SAID PRINCIPLE ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 9 IS BEING APPLIED , HOWEVER , FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY THOUGH REFERENCES IS BEING MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, BUT THE SAME IS NOT REPRODUCED HERE IN . U PHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) , W E DISMISS THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 R AISE D BY THE REVENUE. 1 3 . AS FAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS CONSIDERED , COMPLETE FACTS WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IS AGAINST THE SALE VALUE OF RS.7 CRORES FOR THE FULL PLOT THE VALUE AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS RS.8.08 CRORES , I.E. THE FIGURES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION . B UT THEN ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE SUM AT RS.7 CRORES IN WHICH ASSESSEE S SHARE WORKED OUT TO RS.1.89 CRORES. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS NOT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD ADOPTED TOTAL CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS.7 CRORES. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 1 4 . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE LIMITED ISSUE OF THE WORKING OF THE COST AS ON 01/04/1981. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED SUM OF RS.5 CRORES BUT HAD DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AGREED TO ADOPTION OF THE VALUATION OF LAND AS PER THE DVOS REPORT DATED 03/07/2014 AT RS.1,45,32,000/ - . HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), WHILE CONCLUDING HAD REDUCE D THE VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO BY FURTHER 25%. NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME , WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN REDUCING THE COST AS ON 01/04/1981 BY 25% OF THE VALUE WORKED OUT BY THE DVO. WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 2264/ P U N/20 1 4 SHRI MEER JABBAR MEER AHMAD ALI 10 OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY ADOPTING THE COST AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.1,45,32,000/ - (FULL VALUE) . ASSESSEE BY ADOPTING THE COST AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.1,45,32,000/ - (FULL VALUE) . THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 17 TH FEBRUARY , 201 7 . S S G G R R / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE PR. CIT - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE