Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bidwe, Latur V. Income-tax Officer, Latur

ITA 1012/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5546 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: IS DIRECTED AGAINS T PASSED
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Competent authority; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 2(14); 56(2); 194LA; 13; 6; 28; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1012/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE, 3, MAIN ROAD, GUNJ GOLAL, LATUR PAN : BQJPB0773K VS. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR APPELLANT RESPONDENT / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-2, AURANGABAD ON 27-01-2017 IN R ELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL, ESPOUSED FIRST FOR THE ARGUMENTS BY THE LD. AR., IS AGAINST TREATING INTEREST OF RS.34,16,010/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984 (HEREINAFTER ` THE LAA) AS INTEREST INC OME SEPARATELY CHARGEABLE TO TAX INSTEAD OF A PART AND PARCEL OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION. ASSESSEE BY SHRI SHARAD SHAH REVENUE BY SHRI DEEPAK GARG DATE OF HEARING 05-10-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05-10-2020 ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 2 3. SUCCINCTLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D HIS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.42,370/-. HE RECEIVED E NHANCED COMPENSATION AT RS.38,19,709/- AND INTEREST U/S.28 OF THE L AA AMOUNTING TO RS.68,32,020/- ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION FROM THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (MIW), LATUR AGAINST THE LAN D SITUATED AT VILLAGE KHADGAON, TQ. LATUR. IN THE COLUMN OF EX EMPT INCOME IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE SHOWED FIGURES OF TOTA L INTEREST AT RS.68,32,020/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.2,37,900/ -. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE INTEREST WAS NOT SHO WN SEPARATELY AS INCOME U/S.56(2)(VIII) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) ACT, THE ASSESSEE MADE C ERTAIN SUBMISSIONS WHICH DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (AO). TREATING 50% OF THE INTEREST INCOME AS DEDUCTIBLE IN TE RMS OF SECTION 57(IV), THE AO ADDED NET INTEREST INCOME OF RS.34,16,010/- U/S. 56(2)(VIII) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A ), RELYING ON CERTAIN DECISIONS, WHICH WE WILL ADVERT TO IN THE LATER PART OF THE ORDER, JETTISONED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY APPROV ING THE VIEW OF THE AO IN BRINGING TO TAX THE INTEREST INCOME U/S.56(2)(VIII) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AND COGITATED OVER THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. INDISPUTABLY , THE AMOUNT OF NET INTEREST INCOME COMPUTED BY THE AO U/S.56(2)( VIII) OF THE ACT PERTAINS TO SECTION 28 OF THE LAA. THE ASSESSE E TREATED SUCH AMOUNT AS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OF LAND AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT FROM TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND ITSELF WAS AGRICULTURAL. TO BUTTRESS THE CONTENTION THAT INTERES T U/S 28 OF THE LAA IS A PART OF COMPENSATION AND HENCE NOT CH ARGEABLE TO TAX, THE LD. AR CHIEFLY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT INTER EST U/S.28 UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, IS TO BE TAXED AS PAR T OF CONSIDERATION ON RECEIPT BASIS. THIS JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED ON 16-07-2009. THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01-04-2010 INSERTED CLAUSE (VIII) TO SECTION 56(2) PROVIDING THAT: INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION OR ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 145B SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SECTION 145B(1) PROVIDES THAT: NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN SECTION ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 4 145, THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE ON ANY COMPENS ATION OR ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE D EEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED . THUS IT IS PALPABLE THAT POST THE DECISION IN GHANSHYAM (SUPRA), A STATUTORY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT PROVIDING THAT INCOME BY WA Y OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION OR ON ENHANCED COMPENSA TION SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. THE QUESTION OF TAXABILITY OF INTEREST RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAA CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE HONBLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJET SINGH (HUF) KARTA MANJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA (2016) 237 TAXMAN 0116 (P&H). IT NOTED ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THREE JUDGES OF THE HONBLE APEX COUR T IN BIKRAM SINGH VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) FOLLOWING DR. SHAMLAL NARULA VS. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) HOLDING THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT WAS A REVENUE RECEIPT AND IS TAXABLE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE AVAILABLE RELEVANT MATERIAL INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT IN GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE STATUTORY AMENDMENTS CARRIED OUT W.E.F. A.Y. 2010-11 , THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 5 14.01.2014, DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE B Y HOLDING THAT INTEREST U/S.28 OF LAA WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 56(2)( VIII) OF THE ACT. THE SLP FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MANJET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA HAS SINCE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON 18-12-2014 (SLP NO. 34642 OF 2014) H OLDING THAT HEARD LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY LEGAL AND VALID GROUND FO R INTERFERENCE. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED . 6. QUESTION OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON INTEREST U/S 2 8 OF THE LAA ONCE AGAIN CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN A BATCH OF 13 PETITIONS WITH THE LEAD CASE OF SHIVAJIRAO S/O DNYANOBA GHANWAT & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHATRA & ORS. (WP NO. 5402 OF 2013). THE PETITIONERS CONTENDED THAT THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED IN LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE INTEREST U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, WHICH WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) . PER CONTRA, THE RESPONDENT MADE OUT A CASE THAT TAX AT SOURCE WAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTIBLE AS THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INTEREST GR ANTED ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 6 U/S 28 AND 34 OF THE LAA. THIS VIEW WAS BOLSTERED ON THE BASIS OF AN EARLIER JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN BIKRAM SINGH (SUPRA) 224 ITR 551 (SC). THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2013 (COPY AT PAGES 69 ONWARDS O F THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK), RECORDED THE PETITIONERS CONTENTIO N IN PARA 8 AND THAT OF THE RESPONDENT IN PARAS 3 READ WITH 4. IN P ARA 5 OF THE JUDGMENT, THEIR LORDSHIPS FOUND THAT: SECTION 34 CASTS OBLIGATION UPON COLLECTOR TO PAY INTEREST AFTER COMPENSATION IS WORKED OUT. SECTION 28 PUTS SIMILAR OBLIGATION UPON THE COURT WHEN THE COURT FINDS THAT THE COMPENSATION AWARDED UNDER SECTION 11 WAS INADEQUATE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN NATURE OF INTEREST EITHER U/S.28 OR SECTION 34. EVEN IF COURT HIKES COMPENSATION FOR LAND AND INTEREST IS AWARDED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT, UPO N SUCH INCREASED COMPENSATION, IN THE LIGHT OF LARGER BENCH JUDGMENT, THE DEPARTMENT AND DISBURSING AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO EFFECT DEDUCTION OF TDS. ON THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE HONB LE APEX COURT JUDGMENTS IN GHANSHYAM (SUPRA) & BIKRAM SINGH (SUPRA) , THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PARA 4 FOUND THE: ` ISSUE TO BE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE LARGER BENCH JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN BIKRAM SINGH (SUPRA) . THEN IT NOTED IN PARA 9 OF THE ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 7 JUDGMENT THAT: WE HAVE PERUSED PARA 24 AND 25 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GHANSHY AM (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT THERE, WAS N OT CALLED UPON TO LOOK INTO THE LARGER BENCH JUDGMENT DELIVERED EARLIER IN CASE OF BIKRAM SINGH (SUPRA). IN PARA 7, THE HONBLE LARGER BENCH HAS FOUND THAT THE INTEREST PAID U/S.28 IS NOT BY WAY OF ANY CHARGE ON COMPENSATION DETERMINED U/S.23(1). WE, THEREFORE, WITH RESPECT, FOLLOW THE LARGER BENCH JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APE X COURT . THUS IT IS PLENTIFULLY LUCID THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT INTEREST U/S 28 OF THE LAN D ACQUISITION ACT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C URT HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE LEGAL POSITION INASMUCH AS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM (SUPRA) WAS BINDING AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. HE UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO CONVINCE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT SHOULD NOT BE PREFERRED OVER CERTAIN OTHER DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN CERTAIN DECISIONS, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CO NTRARY VIEW EXPRESSED BY A NON-JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE HIGH COURT, TH E ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 8 TRIBUNAL, BEING AN AUTHORITY INFERIOR IN HIERARCHY TO ITS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IS BOUND BY THE VERDICT OF ITS SUPER IOR HONBLE HIGH COURT AND CANNOT READ, CONSIDER OR UNDERSTAN D THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN A WAY DIFFERENT F ROM THE ONE UNDERSTOOD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT UNLE SS SUCH A VIEW HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED/MODIFIED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 8. THE LD. AR THEN SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. HARI SIINGH AND OTHERS (2018 ) 302 CTR 0458 (SC) HAS CONSIDERED A SIMILAR ISSUE AND DECIDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THEN CONTENDED T HAT SINCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS RENDERED PRIOR TO THAT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HARI SINGH AND OTHERS (SUPRA) , THE LATTER SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN PREFERENCE TO THE FORMER. 9. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY RELEVANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HARI SINGH AND OTHERS (SUPRA) , INSOFAR AS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED. IN THAT CA SE, THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND AN D ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 9 DEPOSITED THE SAME WITH THE EXCHEQUER. A WRIT PETITION WAS FILED IN THE HIGH COURT URGING THAT NO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WAS PERMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194LA OF THE I.T. ACT, SINCE THE LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THIS PROVISION CATEGORICALLY MENTIONS THAT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURA L LAND, TAX AT SOURCE WAS NOT TO BE DEDUCTED. THE HONBLE H IGH COURT DIRECTED THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT TO REFUND THE AMOU NT TO THE COLLECTOR AND HELD: THAT THE COLLECTOR WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PAID IS FOR PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE AGRICULTURA L LAND OR OTHERWISE AND WHETHER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.. . AGGRIEVED THEREBY, THE REVENUE APPROACHED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT PLEADING THAT THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMITTED TO THE AO FOR DECIDING TH E NATURE OF LAND ACQUIRED AND NOT THE COLLECTOR AS IT WAS THE AO WHO WAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION WHETHER LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL O R NOT. ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE CLAIMANT SHOULD APPROACH THE CONCERNED AO AND RAISE THE ISSUE THAT NO TAX WAS PAYABLE O N COMPENSATION/ENHANCED COMPENSATION WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THEM AS THEIR LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT WAS FURTHER OB SERVED ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 10 THAT, WHILE DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PAID WAS FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT, THE AO WILL KEEP IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN CIT, FARIDABAD VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST GIVEN UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATION OR NOT. IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEA R THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH AND OTHERS (SUPRA) IS BASED AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FACTUAL MATRIX IN WHICH THE QUESTIO N WAS AS TO WHETHER IT WAS THE COLLECTOR OR THE AO WHO WILL DECIDE AS TO WHETHER ANY TAX WAS PAYABLE ON COMPENSATION/ENHANCE D COMPENSATION. THIS ISSUE CAME TO BE DECIDED BY HONBLE SUP REME COURT BY HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE RE IS NO ADJUDICATION ON THE POINT AS TO WHETHER INTEREST U/S.28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX SEPARATELY OR PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION. THERE IS A SIMPLE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO CONSIDER THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 10. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, IT IS MANIFEST THA T THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT INTEREST U/S.28 UNDER THE LAA IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX, IS INTACT A ND HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED IN ANY MANNER BY THE HONBLE SUPREM E ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 11 COURT IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH AND OTHERS (SUPRA) . ON A SPECIFIC QUERY, THE LD. AR COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO WHETHER THE JUDG MENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN SHIVAJIRAO (SUPRA) HAS BEEN REVERSED OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN SHIVAJIRAO (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN MANJEET SINGH (SUPRA) ALONG WITH THE STATUTORY AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT TO SECTION 56(2) INSERTING CLAUSE (VIII) W.E.F. 01-04-2010, IT IS OVERT THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAS TAKEN AN UNEXCEPTIONABLE VIEW IN THE MATTER PER TAINING TO THE A.Y. 2013-14. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 11. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE WHICH SURVIVES IN THIS APPEAL IS A GAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.38,58,365/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACQUISITION OF LAND. 12. THE FACTS ANENT TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RE CEIVED A SUM OF RS.39,19,709 ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND. TH E AO NOTICED THAT THE LAND ACQUIRED WAS SITUATED AT VILLAGE KHADGAON, TQ. LATUR. SINCE THE LAND IN QUESTION COMPRISING 45R WAS WE LL WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF LATUR, AS WAS MENTIONED IN PARA 1 7 ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 12 OF THE AWARD, THE AO CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(37), IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE LAND WAS BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOS ES IN A.Y. 1994-95 AND 1995-96. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY PROOF REGARDING THE CULTIVATION OF LAND IN THE ABOVE YEARS. THE 7/1 2 EXTRACTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE PERTA INING TO LAND AT VASANGAON GUT NO. 11, WHICH WAS NOT ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT. HE HELD THAT THE LAND AT KHADGAON, ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT, WAS AN ASSET U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. HE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE SAID LA ND AS ON 1.4.1981, WHICH WAS FOUND AT RS.16,000/- PER HECTOR . ON THIS BASIS, HE COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.38,58,365/-. THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS COUNT. 13. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE CORRECT PIECE OF LAND ACQUIRED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, IN FACT, LAND AT GUT NO.11, VASANGAON WAS ACQUIRED IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE EXTANT COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WRONGLY TOOK NOTE OF SOME DIFFERENT LAND AT KHADGAON, TQ. LATUR, WHICH ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 13 WAS NOT ACQUIRED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD A NOTICE WITH REFERENCE TO LAND AT VASANGAON. C ERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE ALSO SOUGHT TO BE PLACED ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, WHICH RESULTED INTO RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT, WAS AT GUT NO.11 VASANGAON AND NOT KHADGAON, TQ. LATUR . 14. THERE IS COMPLETE CONTRAST IN THE VERSION OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE. WHEREAS THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE LAND ACQU IRED WAS SITUATED AT KHADGAON, THE ASSESSEE IS CONTENDING THAT IT WAS AT GUT NO. 11 VASANGAON. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH A CLAIM, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH HAS NOT PASSED THRO UGH THE EYES EITHER OF THE AO OR THE CIT(A). IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION, IT WOULD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE ON THIS SCORE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO F OR DETERMINING AS TO WHETHER THE LAND ACQUIRED WAS AT KHADGAON OR GUT NO. 11 AT VASANGAON IN THE LIGHT OF THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AND THEREAFTER TO DECIDE WHETHER IT WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR A C APITAL ASSET. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSE SSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF H IS CASE AS HE CONSIDERS EXPEDIENT. ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 14 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH OCTOBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VIC E PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 05 TH OCTOBER, 2020 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-2, AURANGABAD 4. 5. THE PR.CIT-2, AURANGABAD , , / DR A, ITAT, PUNE 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 BASWESHWAR MALLIKARJUN BIDWE 15 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 05-10-2020 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 05-10-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *