IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1129/PN/2013 (A.Y: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 4(5), PUNE APPELLANT VS. SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE B-301, AMAR AMBIENCE, NO.61, BEHIND EMPRESS GARDEN, GHORPADI, PUNE 411001 PAN: ACZPT7807R RESPONDENT ITA NO.1130/PN/2013 (A.Y: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 4(5), PUNE APPELLANT VS. SHRI SUHAS CHANDRAKANT TUPE B-301, AMAR AMBIENCE, NO.61, BEHIND EMPRESS GARDEN, GHORPADI, PUNE 411001 PAN: AEGPT5149D RESPONDENT ITA NO.1131/PN/2013 (A.Y: 2007-08) ITO, WARD 4(5), PUNE APPELLANT VS. SHRI CHANDRAKANT DAGDU TUPE B-301, AMAR AMBIENCE, NO.61, BEHIND EMPRESS GARDEN, GHORPADI, PUNE 411001 PAN: AAEPT2741D RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUHAS P. BORA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJE SH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING: 18.08.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 27.08.2014 2 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE PERTAIN TO ON E GROUP AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEAL)-II, PUNE FOR A.Y. 2007-08. SO, FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN ITA NO.1129/PN/2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, THE REV ENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT NO REFERENCE CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF T HE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE FAI R MARKET VALUE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO REFERENCE WAS MADE TO T HE DVO U/S 55A OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE A .O WAS REASONABLE AND SCIENTIFIC AND WAS BASED ON REAL TIM E SALE INSTANCES. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO RELI ED UPON BY THE A.O WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FMV AS ON 1.4.1981 IS A RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND T HE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD DERIVED CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND AT HADAPSAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED INF ORMATION REGARDING THE ABOVE SALE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED FULL AND TRUE CAPITAL GAINS, THEREFORE, THE CASE WA S REOPENED BY 3 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 25.01.2011 AFTER OBTAINI NG PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-3, PUNE. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,57,403/-, WHICH WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 1,61,62,110/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 22.02.2007 NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHERS HAD SOLD LAND AT S.NO. 2 00/1A/1A ADMEASURING 78 ARES AND S.NO.200/3B ADMEASURING 06. 66 ARES TOTALING TO 84.66 ARES, AT SADESATRA NALLI, PUNE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOTED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN ASSESSEE'S CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALS O TAKEN THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.35,18,388/- BY AD OPTING RS. 560/- PER SQ. MTRS. AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.0 4.1981. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE GOVT. VALUATION OFFICER GIVEN IN A SIMILAR CASE PERTAININ G TO THE SAME AREA WHEREIN THE FMV OF RS.101/- PER SQ. MTRS. AS O N 01.04.1981 WAS TAKEN FOR INDEXATION PURPOSE. THUS THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.3,58,79, 708/- AND DEDUCTED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 CLAIMED AT RS.2,00,75 ,000/-. 2.2 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPO SED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT NO REFERENCE COULD BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. T HE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO REFERENCE WAS MAD E TO THE DVO U/S 55A OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRE D IN NOT 4 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS APPRECIATING THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS REASONABLE AND SCIENTIFIC AND WAS BASED ON REAL TIM E SALE INSTANCES. THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FMV AS ON 1.4.1981 IS A RELEVANT AN D ADMISSIBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. SO, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F CIT(A). 2.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WITH RE GARD TO VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.1981 ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF GOVT. APPROVED VALUER AND DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT(A) BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO REFERENCE COULD BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.1981 ON THE BASIS OF RE PORT OF THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER IS MORE THAN F.M.V. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION HAD DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERT Y. THE DATE WISE RELEVANT DETAILS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER ARE AS UNDER:- A) RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME RS. 349460/- FILE D ON 31.07.2007; B) F.M.V OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.04.1981 AS PER GOVT. APPROVED VALUER REPORT AT RS. 32,85,000/-; C) DATE OF NOTICE U/SEC. 148 WAS ISSUED ON 25.01.2011; D) F.M.V. AS ON 1.04.1981 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF DVO OBTAINED IN THE CASE OF OTHER PERSON AT RS. 5,92,471/- AND E) CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT R S. 1,39,25,210/- 5 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS 2.4 THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY SITUAT ED HADPASAR AT RS.159,29,250/-. SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS HELD PRI OR TO 01.04.1981, THE ASSESSEE GOT THE VALUATION AS ON 01 .04.1981 FROM THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, WHO HAS CERTIF IED THE VALUATION AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.32,85,000/-. ACCO RDINGLY THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 173,44,985/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54B & 54C AMOUNTING TO RS.173,94,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGR EE WITH THE VALUATION AS PER GOVT. APPROVED VALUER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE VALUATI ON REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, SOLAPUR IN RESP ECT OF SOME OTHER LAND WHO VALUED THE LAND AT RS.101/- PER SQ. MTR. AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED TH E COST OF LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.5,92,471/- AND C OMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 313,19,210/- AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EXEMPTION AT RS.173,94,000/- AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 139,25,210/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT GIVEN THE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO TO THE ASSE SSEE AND THEREFORE HE RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE DVO UNIL ATERALLY. MOREOVER, THE DVO REPORT WAS OBTAINED IN THE CASE O F GORAKH MARUTI TUPE & OTHERS AND IS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPE RTY WHICH IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FROM THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON DUE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND BOTH FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUBMISSION FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PAR A 4 TO 4.6 OF HIS ORDER. 2.5 WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO RELY ON THE REPOR T OF THE D.V.O. OBTAINED IN THE CASE OF OTHER PERSON. AS PER PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT, AS WAS ON THE STATUTE PRIOR TO 01.0 7.2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS 6 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS LESSER THAN THE VALUE WHAT ASSESSING OFFICER BELIEV ES TO BE. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: - A) CIT VS. DAULAL MOHTA HUF (2014) 360 ITR 680 (BOM). B) CIT VS. RAMANKUMAR SURI (255 CTR 257) C) CIT V PUJA PRINTS (2014) 360 ITR 697 (BOM). D) M.V. SHAH, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, ANANT MILLS LTD VS. U. J. MATAIN & ANR. (1994) 209 ITR 568 (GUJ). E) ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF KRISHNABAI TINGRE VS . ITO 101 ITD 317. 2.6 IN THIS REGARD, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED OR CHALLENGED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER AS PROVIDED BY THE AS SESSEE AND REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN FORMED AN OPINION AS CONTEMPLA TED BY SECTION 55A OF THE ACT. THE FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 A DOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED UPON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED APPROVED VALUER. THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LESS THAN THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . WE FIND THAT ITAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SANGEETA JEE VAN BHOSALE IN ITA NO.1125/PN/2012 DATED 30.05.2014 AND IN THE CASE OF RAMDAS SONBA TUPE VS. ITO IN ITA NO.534/PN/2013 DAT ED 08.07.2014 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 6. IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS EXAMINED THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR MAKING THE REFERENCE U/S. 55A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SEC. 55A (A) AND HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE FIND THAT S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT VERY CLEARLY A T THE RELEVANT TIE PROVIDED THAT A REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO ONLY WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE 7 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS VALUE ADOPTED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.35.99 LAKHS WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.6.68 LAKHS EVEN AS DETERMIN ED BY THE DVO. IN FACT, THE AO REFERRED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DVO ONLY BECAUSE IN HIS VIEW THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1981 AS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INVOCAT ION OF S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF TH E AMENDMENT TO S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT IN 2012 BY WHICH THE WORDS IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ARE SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORDS IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS F AIR MARKET VALUE IS CLARIFIACTORY AND SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THIS SUBMISSION IS IN FACE O F THE FACT THAT THE 2012 AMENDMENT WAS MADE EFFECTIVE ONL Y FROM 1 ST JULY, 2012. THE PARLIAMENT HAS NOT GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO THE AMENDMENT. THEREFORE, THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT AS EXISTING DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE A SST. YR. 2006-07. AT THE RELEVANT TIME, VERY CLEARLY REF ERENCE COULD BE MADE TO DVO ONLY IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE OPINION OF AO LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. 9. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO BY THE AO IS SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF S. 55A(A)(II) [55A(B)(II)] OF THE ACT IS NOT ACCEPTABL E. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT S. 55A(B) OF THE ACT VERY CLEAR LY STATES THAT IT WOULD APPLY IN ANY OTHER CASE I.E. A CASE NOT COVERED BY S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTABLE POSITION THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, RESORT CANNOT BE HAD TO THE RESIDUARY CLAUSE PROVIDED IN S. 55A(B)(II) OF T HE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CBDT CIRCULAR DT. 25TH NO V., 1972 CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE FACE OF THE CLE AR POSITION IN LAW. THIS IS SO AS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS BY THE REVENUE AS FOUND IN CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS RIOT BINDING UPON TH E ASSESSEE AND IT IS OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO CONTEND T O THE CONTRARY. 7. IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH (SUPRA) TH E HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. UNDER CL. (A) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT THE AO IS EN TITLED TO MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER IN A CASE WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE 8 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER, IF THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE . IN ANY OTHER CASE, AS PROVIDED UNDER CL. (B) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS TO RECORD AN OPINION THAT (I) T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE OR BY MORE THAN SUCH AN AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; OR (II) HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET AND OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECES SARY TO MAKE SUCH A REFERENCE. 11. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL (ANNEX. D) FROM RESPONDENT NO. 2 DVO TO THE PETITIONER INSOFAR AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981 IS CONCERNED, THE PETITIONER HAD CLAIMED THE SAME AT A SUM OF RS.6,25,000 AS PER REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO FORM AN OPINION T HAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE. THE ESTIMATED VALUE PROPOSED BY THE DVO IS SHOWN AT RS.3,97,000, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VAL UE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981. THEREFORE, CL. (A) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE M ADE APPLICABLE. CLAUSE (B) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN ANY OTHER CASE, NAMELY WHEN THE VAL UE OF THE ASSET CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORT ED BY AN ESTIMATE MADE BY A REGISTERED VALUER. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, CL. (B) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT ALSO CANNOT BE INVOKED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HAVING RECOURSE TO SUB-CL. (II) OF CL. (B) OF S. 55 A OF THE (ACT. 12. THERE IS ONE MORE ASPECT OF THE MATTER. FOR INVOKING S. 55A OF THE ACT, THERE HAS TO BE A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE AO CAN RECORD OPINION EITHER UNDER CL. (A) OR CL. (B) OF S. 55A O F THE ACT TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE GO TO SHOW THAT THE REFERENCE W AS MADE ON 26TH APRIL, 1996, WHEREAS, THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 27TH AUG., 1996. HENCE, ON THE DATE OF MAKING THE REFERE NCE BY THE AO, NO CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH E AO COULD NOT HAVE FORMED ANY OPINION AS TO EXISTENC E OF PRESCRIBED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE A SSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FAIR MARKET VALU E. THEREFORE ALSO, PROVISIONS OF S. 55A OF THE ACT COU LD NOT HAVE BEEN RESORTED TO BY THE AO. 9 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS 8. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POW ER TO MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 BY INVOKING U/S. 55A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR DETERMI NING FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 ON THE OPINION THAT F MV MUST BE LESS THAN AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOR EOVER, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORD INGLY, CONFIRM THE SAME AND GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. 3. NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLED GE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE NO T INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ACCEPTING THE ASSE SSEES CONTENTION THAT NO REFERENCE COULD BE MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MO RE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 4. A SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NOS.1130 & 1131/PN/ 2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING TH E SAME REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH TH E FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT NO REFERENCE COULD BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. W E UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 27 TH AUGUST, 2014 GCVSR 10 ITA NOS.1129, 1130 & 1131 OF 13 SMT. VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE & OTHERS COPY TO:- 1) DEPARTMENT 2) ASSESSEE 3) THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4) THE CIT-II, PUNE 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE