Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Nashik V. Shri Yogesh Onkar Bhore, Nashik

ITA 1178/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 117824514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GARIMA C HOUDHARY
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 54F

Judgement Text

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.1053/PN/2011 (ASST. YEAR: 2008-09) I.T.O., WARD 1(4) APPELLANT VS. SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE, 4329, BHORE SADAN, SARDAR CHOWK, PANCHAVATI, NASHIK. PAN: AJZPB6994N RESPONDENT ITA NO.1054/PN/2011 (ASST. YEAR: 2008-09) I.T.O., WARD 1(4) APPELLANT VS. SMT. ARUNA SURESH BHORE, 4329, BHORE SADAN, SARDAR CHOWK, PANCHAVATI, NASHIK. PAN: AMWPB8913F RESPONDENT ITA NO.1055/PN/2011 (ASST. YEAR: 2008-09) I.T.O., WARD 1(4) APPELLANT VS. LATE SHRI ONKAR YADAVRAO BHORE, 4329, BHORE SADAN, 2 SARDAR CHOWK, PANCHAVATI, NASHIK. PAN: AMWPB8896K RESPONDENT ITA NO.1177/PN/2011 (ASST. YEAR: 2008-09) I.T.O., WARD 1(4) APPELLANT VS. SHRI KALPESH ONKAR BHORE, 4329, BHORE SADAN, SARDAR CHOWK, PANCHAVATI, NASHIK. PAN: AMWPB8895L RESPONDENT ITA NO.1178/PN/2011 (ASST. YEAR: 2008-09) I.T.O., WARD 1(4) APPELLANT VS. SHRI YOGESH ONKAR BHORE, 4329, BHORE SADAN, SARDAR CHOWK, PANCHAVATI, NASHIK. PAN: AMWPB8812R RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS GARIMA C HOUDHARY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHI L PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 26.12.2013 DATE OF ORDER : 31.12.2013 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: 3 ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME GROUP FOR SA ME ASSESSMENT YEAR ON SIMILAR ISSUES. SO THESE WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE REV ENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A)-L, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION AT RS.30,78,442/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981, FOR A.Y.2008-09 MADE UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION AT RS.10,55,776/-ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTI ON CLAIMED UNDER SEC.54B, FOR A.Y.2008-09 MADE UNDER SEC.143(3 ) OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION AT RS.10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENS ES FOR TRANSFER OF LAND, FOR A.Y.2008-09 MADE UNDER SEC. 1 43(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE CIT A PPEAL ERRED IN ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE EVEN THOUGH PROVI SIONS OF RULE 46 A WERE NOT SATISFIED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 5. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN NOT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO FOR CROSS EXAMINING THE PARTIES, EVEN THOUGH SUCH REQUEST WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE BY AO UNDER LETTER NO.NSK/ITO/WD L(4)/ REMAND REPORT/2011-12/31 DATED 26/04/2011. THE EV IDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A(1) CANNOT B E CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS UNLESS THE AO IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES, AS HEL D BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUBBU SHASHNAK (2010) 327 ITR 577 (MAD.) 6. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WARD.1(1) NASHIK FOR ADDITION UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WARD.1 (1), NASHIK, BE RESTORED. 4 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND ALTER ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 3. FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.30 ,78,442/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 F OR A.Y. 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS ON SA LE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.44,59,870/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE U/S.143(3) AT RS.1, 00,64,243/- AS UNDER: ADDITIONS IN ACCOUNT OF 1) ALLEGED INFLATED COST OF LAND ON 01.04.1981 RS.30,78,442/- 2) DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54B RS.10,55,776/- 3) DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54F RS.04,70,146/- 4) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF TRANSFER OF LAND RS.10,00,000/- ------------------ TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED RS.1,00,64,234/- ============= 4. ONE OF THE ADDITION WAS OF RS.30,78,442/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.1 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED, WHIC H WERE CONFRONTED TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF REMAND REPORT. HAVING CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT, CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US. 4.2 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED BEFORE US THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.30 ,78,442/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. 4.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATE D THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.50,000/- PER HECTOR FOR ARRI VING AT TAXABLE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM CONCERNED A SST. SUB- 5 REGISTRAR, NASHIK VIDE LETTER DATED 20.10.2010 IN R ESPECT OF MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN THE YEAR 1989. THE INFORMATION / VALUE OF THE LAND IN THE YEAR 1989 ESTIMATED BY THE ASST. SUB-REGISTR AR / A.O. ON THE BASIS OF GENERAL RATES ESTIMATED FOR 60 PLACES IN N ASHIK DISTRICT, SUCH AS NASHIK ROAD, MHASRUL, GANGAPUR ROAD, GANGAP UR, DINDORI, MAKHMALABAD ETC. THE SAID GENERAL RATES OF RS.80, 000/- PER HECTOR FOR JIRAYAT AGRICULTURAL LANDS SITUATED AT VARIOUS 60 PLACES FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. THUS, THE VALUATION ESTIMATED WITHO UT CONSIDERING EXACT LOCATION OF LAND AND ITS MARKET VALUE AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. WHILE THE VALUATION OF THE LAND MADE BY THE APPROVED VALUER IS IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIC LAND OF T HE ASSESSEE SITUATED AT MHASRUL SHIWAR ON SPECIFIC PHYSICAL VERIFICATION AND LOCATION OF THE LAND ARRIVED AT BY THE VALUER WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD HAS TO BE RELIED ON BETTER FOOTINGS. THE VALUER HAS BASED HIS VALUATION ON THE BASIS OF EXACT LOCATION, PHYSICAL VERIFICATION AND INSTANCES OF SALE OF LAND AND SCIENTIFIC FORMULA HAS BEEN ADOPTED FOR VALUATION OF LAND. ACCORDINGLY, MORE PRECISELY HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CONCERNED VALUER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF VALUATION OF LAND FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 IS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS O F REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF VALUE PRE SCRIBED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE REPLY OF THE REGISTERED VALUER EXPLAINING THE BASIS FOR VALUATION OF THE LA ND AS ON 01.04.1981. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 26.04.2011 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLAIMED THAT NO REPLY WAS FILED BY GOVE RNMENT APPROVED VALUER EXPLAINING BASIS FOR VALUATION OF THE LAND A S ON 01.04.1981 AND HAS CLAIMED THAT THE EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE TAKE N INTO ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FILED ANY COMMENT IN THE REMAND REPORT IN RESPECT OF EXPLANATION FILED BY THE REGIS TERED VALUER IN SUPPORT OF VALUATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QU ESTION AS ON 01.04.1981. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VALUING THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.50,000/- PER HECTOR AS AGAINST RS.1,25,000/- PER HECTOR VALUED 6 BY APPROVED VALUER AS PER HIS VALUATION REPORT DATE D 20.08.2006. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHTLY DIRE CTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.30,78,445/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. THIS REASONED FACTUAL FINDI NG OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF DED UCTION U/S.54B TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,55,776/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAS OFFERE D TO TAX CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.44,39,992/- IN RESPECT OF LAND SOLD AS UNDER: NAME AND% SALE/VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY COST OF ACQUI. 1/4/1981 INDEXED COST EXP. FOR TRANSFER DEDUCTION U/S. 54B DEDUCTION U/S. 54F CAPITAL GAIN SANTOSH 25% 13367500 933438 5143241 1385000 1929190 470147 4439922 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.54 B TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,73,414/- AT 8% OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSED BY HIM IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSEE'S SHARE AS SHOWN RS.1,33,67,500/- LESS: EXPENSES FOR TRANSFER TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEES. RS. 3,85,000/- . RS.1,29,82,500/- LESS: INFLATED COST OF ACQUISITION AS WORKED OUT R S. 20,64,796/- . CAPITAL GAIN RS.1,09,17,704/- ============== 5.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT CAPITAL GA IN RELATED TO AREA OF LAND ON WHICH CROPS OTHER THAN GRASS WERE G ROWN WHICH IS 8% AREA OF THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND SOLD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN AT 8% AT RS .8,73,414/- AND RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54B TO THE SAID EXTEN T AS AGAINST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.19,29,190/- TOWARDS C OST OF PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE 7 DISALLOWANCE VIDE PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WH ICH READ AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE'S HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54B AS THEY HAVE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN TIME ALLOWED U/S . 54B. ON GOING THROUGH THE 7/12 EXTRACTS FOR THE VARIOUS LAN D SOLD IT IS SEEN THAT THE ENTIRE LAND WAS GAYRAN AND PADIT LAND EXCEPT 2.40 HECTOR IN GAT NO. 31/1/1, BEING USED FOR AGRIC ULTURE PURPOSE. IT WAS THEREFORE INFORMED TO THAT ASSESSEE THAT EXCEPT FOR 2.40 HECTOR CAPITAL GAIN ATTRIBUTABLE TO 2.40 H ECTOR, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54B IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE CA PITAL GAIN ATTRIBUTABLE TO OTHER LAND. IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THA T THE LAND SOLD WAS NOT THE LAND WHICH, IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, WAS BEIN G USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS FOR AGRICULTURAL PU RPOSES. IN THE SATHEKHAT AS WELL AS SALE DEED IN PARA 1 REGARDING 'DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY', IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN MENTIONED THAT TH E LAND TO BE SOLD ARE KNOWN AS 'GAYRAN AND PADIT AGRICULTURAL LA ND' OF WHICH THE DESCRIPTION IS GIVEN IN PARA 1 OF THE SAT HEKHAT AND SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE'S REPLY THAT THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND WAS BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE, IS BASELESS AN D CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE LAND WHICH WAS BEING USED FOR AGRICUL TURAL WAS OUT OF GAT NO. 31/1/1 ADMEASURING 2.40 HECTOR ONLY. THE TOTAL AREA OF SOLD IS 29.87 HECTOR. THE PERCENTAGE OF LAN D USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE COMES TO 8%. THEREFORE, THE D EDUCTION U/S.54B IS ALLOWED ON THE CAPITAL GAIN TO THE EXTEN T OF 8% TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN. 5.2 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY WHO HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME HAS BEEN O PPOSED BEFORE US BY REVENUE AND LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.10,55,776/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCT ION CLAIMED U/S.54B FOR A.Y. 2008-09 MADE U/S.143(3) OF I.T. AC T. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. 5.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AGR ICULTURAL LAND ALONG WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON U/S.54B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE SAID DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF 8% AS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE 7/12 EXTRACTS OF THE 8 VARIOUS LANDS IN QUESTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TICED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL LAND OF 29.87 HECTORS, LAND TO THE EXTENT OF ONLY 2.40 HECTORS WAS UNDER CULTIVATION OF CROPS AS ON REMAIN ING LAND GRASS WAS GROWN AS MENTIONED ON 7/12 EXTRACTS OF THE SAID LAND. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER GRASS GROWN ON PART OF LAND HAS ME NTIONED ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THE PART OF LAND IS CULTIVATED AND PART OF LAND IS NOT CULTIVATED DUE TO HILLY AREA AND FOR WANT OF WATER, ETC. REASONS CAN BE SAID THAT TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD HAS BEEN UTI LIZED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES DURING PRECEDING TWO YEARS AS REQUIRED FOR CLAIM U/S.54B OF I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIME D THAT HE HAS GROWN THE FODDER ON PART OF LAND SOLD DUE TO NON-AV AILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT WATER, LAND WAS HILLY AND SAME WAS REQUI RED FOR BUFFALOES MAINTAINED BY BOTH THE FAMILY WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CHARGES PAID TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR MAINTAINING BUFFA LOES. THE OTHER REMAINING FODDER GRASS WAS ALSO SOLD TO OTHER BUFFA LOES OWNERS. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT HE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON TOTAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS GROWN FODDER GRASS ON PART OF LAND AS MENTIONED IN 7/12 EXTRACT FILED ON THE RECORD OF ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLA IM GRASS GROWN WAS AS A RESULT OF SOME ACTIVITY OF PLOUGHING AND SOWIN G OF GRASS SEEDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM GRASS SEEDS WAS PURCHASED AND LABOURERS WHO HAVE CARRIED OUT TH E PLOUGHING AND SOWING WORK AND ALSO THE WORK OF CUTTING OF FOD DER GRASS MAINLY FOR CONSUMPTION OF BUFFALOES. THOUGH, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER VERIFIED THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE AND FILED THE REMAND R EPORT THAT CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE SHOULD BE REJECTED. THE DUE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PROCEED INGS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT FODDER GRA SS GROWN ON AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR UTILIZATION OF LAND FOR AGRIC ULTURAL PURPOSES WAS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF CIT VS. SMT. SAVITA RA NI (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P & H). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT WAS FOUND THAT AS SESSEE HAS GROWN 9 FODDER GRASS DURING RAINY SEASON ON THE PART OF LAN D MAINLY FOR BUFFALOES OWNED BY BHORE FAMILY BY CARRYING OUT AGR ICULTURAL OPERATIONS SUCH AS PLOUGHING, SOWING AND CUTTING. THUS, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT GRASS GROWN ON PART OF THE LAND AS MENTIO NED IN 7/12 EXTRACT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CAR RIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE, WHO HAS GIVEN REASONED FINDINGS FOR HOLDI NG GRASS GROWN ON THE PART OF LAND AS MENTIONED IN 7/12 EXTRACT IS ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 5.4 REGARDING SECOND PREPOSITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IN THE CASES WHERE ASSESSEE OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND COULD CULTIVATE ONLY SMALL PART OF LAND AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CULTIVATE REMAINING PART OF LAND DUE TO LACK OF WATER THEN ALSO THE ASS ESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54B. WE FIND THAT MADRAS ITAT BE NCH IN THE CASE OF M.A. ALAGAPPAN VS. ITO 29 ITD 69 (MAD) HAS DECID ED THE SIMILAR ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE BY HIMSELF HAD DECIDED TO ABANDON THE INTENTION TO CULTIVATE THE L AND EVEN THOUGH THE ACTUAL CULTIVATION IS NOT POSSIBLE DUE T O LACK OF WATER. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE REASON FOR SELLING THE LANDS AND MIGHT HAVE FETCHED A HIGHER PRICE BECAUSE OF TH E INTENDED USER OF THE PURCHASER; BUT, IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY REBUT THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION THAT THE PROPERTY, CLASSIFIED A S AGRICULTURAL LAND IN REVENUE RECORDS AND ACCEPTED AS AGRICULTURA L LAND IN THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENTS, CEASED TO BE SUCH AGRIC ULTURAL LAND BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF SUCH LANDS. THE EXPRESSION USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES IN SECTION 54B COULD ONLY BE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS SUBJE CT OF THE TRANSFER AND NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR GRANTING THE RELIEF U/S.54B. ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASS ESSEE HAS INFACT CULTIVATED A PART OF ITS LAND ACCORDING TO T HE ADANGAL REGISTER (REVENUE RECORD) AND NO FURTHER CULTIVATIO N WAS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF LACK OF WATER. THE USE REFERRE D TO IN THE SECTION CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS SUCH USE AS THE LAN DS ARE CAPABLE OF WITH THE AID OF FACILITIES AVAILABLE AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE RELIEF BECAUSE HE WAS ACTUALLY UNABLE TO PUT THE LAND TO USE DUE TO VAGARIES OF NATURE AND N ON AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES. 10 5.5 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT WHERE PA RT OF LAND CULTIVATED AND PART IS NOT CULTIVATED DUE TO HILLY AREA AND FOR WANT OF WATER ETC. REASONS COULD BE SAID THAT THE TOTAL AG RICULTURAL LAND SOLD HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES DURING PRECEDING TWO YEARS AS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING U/S.54B. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAI M DEDUCTION U/S.54B TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19,29,190/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.8 ,73,414/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHTLY DIRE CTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.10,55,776/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE OF PART OF CLAIM U/S.54B. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEE DS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.10,0 0,000/- TO CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY DISALLOWING EXPENSES FOR T RANSFER. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE SISTERS/DAUGHTERS OF THE BHORE FAMILY HAD LIMITED RIGHTS IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD AND HE NCE THEY WERE PAID CONSIDERATION OF RS.10,00,000/- FOR SURRENDERING TH EIR RIGHTS. IN THIS REGARD, THE SUBMISSION WERE FILED ON BEHALF OF ASSE SSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 15.04.2011 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'THE SISTERS/DAUGHTERS OF THE BHORE FAMILY HAVE SUR RENDERED THEIR RIGHTS IN THE LAND AND HENCE YOUR APPELLANT H AS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- TO THEM. SOME OF THE PERSO NS RECEIVING THE AMOUNT HAVE FILED RETURN OF INCOME SH OWING THE AMOUNT AS INCOME. THE A.O. HAS HOWEVER, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT STATING THAT THE CLAIM IS NOT PROV ED WITH PROPER EVIDENCE AND THE ACT OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLA NT IS VOLUNTARY ACT. THE A.O. HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT N O PERSON IN THE MODERN ERA IS LIKELY TO SURRENDER HIS/HER VALUA BLE RIGHT/S IN THE LAND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS . 10,00,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY BANK CHEQUES, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 11 DATE NAME OF THE BANK AND CHEQUE NO. PAYEE OF THE AMOUNT AMOUNT 19/9/2006 MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK CHEQUE NO.3484 ASHABAI BARIDE SISTER 1,25,000 21/9/2006 MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK CHEQUE NO.3395 VAISHALI ADAYPRABHU SISTER 2,50,000 16/9/2006 MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK CHEQUE NO.3397 MANISHA K. BARIDE SISTER 2,50,000 26/9/2006 MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK CHEQUE NO.3396 SHARMILA MAHANKALE SISTER 2,50,000 16/9/2006 MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK CHEQUE NO. 3 561 RANGUBAI Y. BHORE GRAND MOTHER 1,25,000 TOTAL 10,00,000 IT IS TRUE THAT THE HAKKA SOD PATRA I.E. DEED OF RE LINQUISHMENT OF RIGHTS IN THE LAND HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS ON 29/8/2006 AND AT THAT TIME THE CONSIDERATION FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHTS HAS NOT BEEN PAID, HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS BEEN PAID AS ABOVE I.E. WITHI N VERY SHORT PERIOD OF 14 DAYS. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE HER E THAT ONE OF THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE BHORE FAMILY I.E. SMT. SHARMI LA RAVINDRA MAHANKALE TO WHOM PAYMENT FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF RIG HTS WAS MADE BY SHRI SANTOSH BHORE AND SMT. ARUNA BHORE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.5,00,00 0/- AND HAS ALSO PAID CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON THE SAME. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF SMT. SHARMILA R. MAHANKALE IS ENCLOSED. COPY OF REL EVANT BANK STATEMENT IS ENCLOSED. COPY OF HAKKA SOD PATRA IS E NCLOSED. FURTHER THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PE RSONS FOR RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF THEIR R IGHTS FROM MEMBERS OF BHORE FAMILY, FILED ON THE RECORD OF THE A.O. ARE ENCLOSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF RELINQUISHMENT OF R IGHTS IN THE LAND SOLD.' 6.1 IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED TH E SAID EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 3, SU B-PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON TRANSFER W HICH INCLUDES THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR SURRENDER OF RIGHTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF T HE CLAIM AND ALSO CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES REGARDING ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT BY THEM. NOTHING WAS MENTIONED IN THE CO PY OF SATHEKHAT, PURCHASE DEED AND A DEED FOR SURRENDER O F RIGHT ABOUT THE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BEING DAUGHTERS AND SISTERS. ON THE CONTRARY IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONGWITH SURRENDER DEED IT HAS BEEN 12 MENTIONED THAT THE SURRENDER OF RIGHT IS WITHOUT AN Y COST. FURTHER THE AMOUNT IF ANY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS V OLUNTARY ACT AND IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE FOR TRANSFE R. THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IS THEREFORE, NOT IN ORDER AND ALL OWABLE AS AN EXPENDITURE ON TRANSFER. THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON TH IS GROUND ARE THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWED.' 6.2 THE CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND AGREEING WITH THE SAME, GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE, INT ER ALIA STATED THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES FOR TRANSFER OF LAND FOR A .Y. 2008-09 MADE U/S.143(3) OF I.T. ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. 6.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ON PERUSAL OF COPIES OF DEEDS FOR SURRENDER OF RIGHTS, IT WAS NOTICED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT, I T IS NO WHERE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE SAID DEEDS THAT THE SAME WAS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERING PAID RS.10,00,000/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN STATED IN THE DEEDS FOR SURRENDER OF RIGHTS. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SAID DEEDS TH AT THE SAID ANCESTRAL LANDS WERE OWNED BY THE MEMBERS OF BHORE FAMILY, WHO HAVE SOLD THE LANDS AND THE SAID FEMALE MEMBERS OF BHORE FAMILY WERE MARRIED DAUGHTERS AND WERE STAYING WITH THEIR HUSBANDS ELSEWHERE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. IT HAS BEE N THE STAND OF ASSESSEE THAT AS PER HINDU LAW THE SAID MARRIED FEM ALE MEMBERS HAVE LIMITED RIGHTS OF MAINTENANCE AND IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SAID DEEDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ARRANGED FOR HIS A BOVE MENTIONED LIABILITY AND HAS FULFILLED THE SAME AND IN FUTURE ALSO SHALL FULFILL THE SAID LIABILITY. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ALL THE SA ID PAYMENTS TOWARDS SURRENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE LAND WERE MADE BY BANK C HEQUES IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2006 I.E. WITHIN ABOUT 15 DAYS OF ENTERING INTO THE DEEDS FOR SURRENDER OF RIGHTS. FURTHER AT THE A SSESSMENT STAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PAYEES, WHO HAVE SURRENDERED THEIR RIGHTS FOR CONSIDERATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER 13 ALONGWITH COPIES OF DEEDS FOR SURRENDER OF RIGHTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY ONE O F THE PAYEE SMT. SHARMILA R. MAHANKALE, WHO RECEIVED THE PAYMENT AND HAS DECLARED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS OF THE SAID PAYEES IN THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLAIMED THAT IN THE AFFIDAVITS FILED ALONGWITH SURRENDER DEEDS IT HAS B EEN MENTIONED THAT SURRENDER OF RIGHTS IS WITHOUT ANY COST. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORD NO SUCH AFFIDAVITS WERE FOUND ALO NGWITH SURRENDER DEEDS BY CIT(A) AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLAIMED THAT IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS NOW FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE C IT(A)-1, NASHIK, THE MODE OF PAYMENT IS NOT GIVEN AND NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR ACTUAL PAYMENT I.E. CHEQUE NUMBER, BANK NAME, ETC. IS GIVEN. NO PROOF FOR PAYMENT FOR TAXES ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE THE EXPENSES CLAIMED MAY NOT BE ALLOWED ON THE STRENGTH OF AFFIDAVITS.' ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION, VIDE LETTER DATED 20.10.2008 HAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT BY BANK CHEQUES FOR SURRENDER OF RIGHTS AND ACCORDINGL Y CALCULATED CAPITAL GAIN. THE DETAILS OF BANK, CHEQUE NUMBER, E TC. AND THE DETAILS OF THE PAYEES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE DY. DIRECT OR OF INVESTIGATION IN THE SAID LETTER. IT WAS MENTIONE D BY DY. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION FOR TAXING C APITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYEES AS THEY HAVE RECEIVED CONSIDERA TION BY BANK CHEQUES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE MODE OF PAYMENT AND EVIDENCE FOR ACTUAL PAYMENT I.E . CHEQUE NUMBER, BANK NAME, ETC. HAVE NOT BEEN FILED ON RECO RD AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PA YMENTS WERE MADE BY BANK CHEQUES AND THE FACT THAT THE SAID DEE DS AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE FILED THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE STANDS 14 PROVED EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AFFIDAVITS OF THE PAY EES FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO THE LAND SOLD. THIS UNDISPUTED FINDING OF CIT(A) ON ISSUE NEEDS NO INTE RFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 8. IN ITA NO.1054/PN/2011, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED A LMOST THE SIMILAR GROUNDS AS IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011. 9. THE ISSUE NO.1 IS PERTAINING TO ADDITION OF RS.3 0,78,442/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 F OR A.Y. 2008-09. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE C ASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO-OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NO T INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.30,78,442/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 10. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.10, 55,776/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54B FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 MADE U/S.143(3) OF I.T. ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO- OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAM E REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT (A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,55,776/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF D ISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54B OF I.T. ACT. WE UPHOLD T HE SAME. 11. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EX PENSES FOR TRANSFER OF LAND FOR A.Y. 2008-09 MADE U/S.143(3) O F I.T. ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE CASE OF S HRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSE E VIDE PARA 6 OF 15 THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO-OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED T O INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES FOR TRA NSFER OF LAND FOR A.Y. 2008-09. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 12. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 13. IN ITA NO.1055/PN/2011, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ALMOST THE SIMILAR GROUNDS AS IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011. 14. THE ISSUE NO.1 IS PERTAINING TO ADDITION OF RS. 24,62,755/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 F OR A.Y. 2008-09. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE C ASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO-OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NO T INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.24,62,755/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 15. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.54, 328/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54B FOR A.Y. 2008-09 MADE U/S.143(3) OF I.T. ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/20 11 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVO UR OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO-O WNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.54,328/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDU CTION CLAIMED U/S.54B OF I.T. ACT. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 16. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EX PENSES FOR TRANSFER OF LAND FOR A.Y. 2008-09 MADE U/S.143(3) O F I.T. ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE CASE OF S HRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSE E VIDE PARA 6 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO-OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO 16 FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED T O INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES FOR TRA NSFER OF LAND FOR A.Y. 2008-09. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 17. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 18. IN ITA NO.1177/PN/2011, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ALMOST THE SIMILAR GROUNDS AS IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011. 19. THE ISSUE NO.1 IS PERTAINING TO ADDITION OF RS. 15,39,224/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 F OR A.Y. 2008-09. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE C ASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO-OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NO T INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.15,39,224/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 20. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.3,1 5,593/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54B FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 MADE U/S.143(3) OF I.T. ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO- OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAM E REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT (A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,15,593/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DI SALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54B OF I.T. ACT. WE UPHOLD T HE SAME. 21. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 22. IN ITA NO.1178/PN/2011, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ALMOST THE SIMILAR GROUNDS AS IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011. 23. THE ISSUE NO.1 IS PERTAINING TO ADDITION OF RS. 15,39,224/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 F OR A.Y. 2008-09. 17 SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE C ASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO-OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NO T INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.15,39,224/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED COST OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 24. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.3,1 5,593/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54B FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 MADE U/S.143(3) OF I.T. ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NO.1053/PN/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BEING CO- OWNER AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAM E REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT (A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,15,593/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DI SALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54B OF I.T. ACT. WE UPHOLD T HE SAME. 25. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAY OF 31 ST DECEMBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 31 ST DECEMBER, 2013 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1. DEPARTMENT 2. ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE