ACIT, Pune V. Late ShriDhondu Roji Chinchwade, Pune

ITA 1547/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 154724514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1547/PN/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 9, PUNE . APPELLANT VS. LATE SHRI DHONDU RAOJI CHINCHWADE, THROUGH L/R SURESH DHONDU CHINCHWADE, S.NO.57, CHINCHWADE FARM, WALHEKARWADI, CHINCHWAD, PUNE-33 . RESPONDENT PAN: AEEPC2310R APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 26-02-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-04-2015 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-V, PUNE DATED 25.04.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WHEN THE NAME OF A PARTNER SHIP FIRM 'M/S MANGAL ENTERPRISES' REFLECTS IN THE RELIED UPON 7/1 2 EXTRACT AS 'OWNER' AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AS ONE OF THE PA RTNERS ONLY. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE MERELY RELYING ON THE 7/12 EXTRACT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE WHEN THE BASIC DOCUMENT GIVING OWNERSHIP RIGHT IS NOT IN POS SESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE, WHEN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 3.2.1973 WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. OR THE CIT(A). ITA NO.1547/PN/2012 LATE SHRI DHONDU RAOJI CHINCHWADE 2 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE IN THE ABSENCE OF ABOVE PARTNERSHIP DEED WHICH COULD HAVE SHOWN THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE PARTNERS AND AS TO H OW THE OWNERSHIP DEVOLVED UPON M/S. MANGAL ENTERPRISES. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE STAND TAKEN IN EARLIER GRO UNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED IN INDIVIDUAL NAME ONLY ON THE DATE OF DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM I.E. 3.01.2001, COST OF WHICH WAS NIL AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF ADOPTING FAIR MAR KET VALUE AS ON 1.04.1981 DID NOT ARISE ? 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS IN RELATION TO THE TAXABILITY OF PORTION OF THE LAND SOLD BY TH E ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E AT RS.99,71,757. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD HIS RIGHT IN THE PROP ERTY SITUATED AT SR.NO.1, HISSA NO.3, CTS NO.3493 TO 3796, NEAR BHOSARI GAOTHAN, BH OSARI, PUNE VIDE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 28.03.2006 FOR TOTAL CO NSIDERATION OF RS.2,90,96,317/-. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.2,73,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL CONSIDER ATION OF RS.7,12,00,000/- AND BALANCE WAS PAID TO THE OTHER PARTIES. THE SUB-REG ISTRAR HAD ADOPTED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.7,58,88,900/- AN D CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE INCREASED SALE VALUE PROPORTIONATELY A T RS.2.90 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IT HAD 38.34% SHARE I N THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS DECLARED A T RS.38,48,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 03.11.2008, WHO IN TURN VALUED THE SHARE OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS.37,64,000/- AS ON 01.04.1981. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE PERUSAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOTED THAT THE NAME OF ASSESS EE WAS NOT MENTIONED AS OWNER, BUT WAS MENTIONED AS CONSENTING PARTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS, SHOW CAUSED WHY THE COST OF ACQUISITION SHOULD NOT BE TA KEN AS NIL IN VIEW OF NO ITA NO.1547/PN/2012 LATE SHRI DHONDU RAOJI CHINCHWADE 3 OWNERSHIP RIGHT AS EVIDENT FROM THE PLAIN READING O F THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DEVELOPME NT AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FA ILED TO ESTABLISH THAT HE WAS HAVING OWNERSHIP RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY TO THE EXTEN T OF 38.34% AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHT IN THE SAID PR OPERTY WAS ADOPTED AT NIL BY HIM AND THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.90 CRORES WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 8 AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE APP ELLATE ORDER. THE SAID SUBMISSIONS WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE REVENUE RECORDS I.E. 7/12 EXTRACT AND THE MUTATION PAPERS AND FURNISH A REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE LAND BELONGED TO CHI NCHWAD DEVASTHAN TRUST AND THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED ONLY TO THE BR AHMINS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FORMED PARTNERSHIP WITH ORIGINAL OWNERS ON LY TO CREATE RIGHTS AS A PLOY, ON THE VERY NEXT DATE AND FORMED PARTNERSHIP DEED. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS ACT WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE TO CREATE RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER THE ORIGINAL OWNER NOR HE HAD INCURRED ANY COST, THEREFORE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION REMAINED AT NIL. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED AND AGREED THAT HE HAD DEFINIT E STAKE IN THE LAND AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO BASIS IN ADOPTING THE COST OF A CQUISITION AT NIL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE STAKE IN THE LAND EXISTED AND CONTINUED FR OM 08.02.1973. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SAID EVIDENCE OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 11. IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE APP ELLANT IS RIGHT WHEN HE STATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTS T HAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING CERTAIN RIGHTS IN THE SAID LAND. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE 7/12 EXTRACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND THAT THE APPELLANT'S NA ME APPEARS IN THE COL. MEANT FOR OWNER (MALKA CHA NAV). IN THIS COL., THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED. THERE IS COL. FOR OTHER RIGH TS IN 7/12 EXTRACT WHERE NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THEREFORE, IN REVENUE RECORDS ITSELF, THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS OWNER. THER EAFTER, IN MUTATION PAPERS (PATRAK), THE APPELLANT'S NAME IS MENTIONED AS PURCHASER. THEREFORE, FROM THE REVENUE RECORDS, TWO POINTS ARE CLEAR THAT THE ITA NO.1547/PN/2012 LATE SHRI DHONDU RAOJI CHINCHWADE 4 APPELLANT WAS OWNER AND ALSO PURCHASER. THE ONLY IN FORMATION WHICH COULD NOT BE GATHERED WAS AMOUNT INCURRED FOR PURCH ASE OR ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN THE LAND BY THE APPELLANT AND D UE TO DEATH OF THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COU NSEL OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN THIS REGARD BY THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE COST INCURRED IS NOT MATERIAL IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN 1973 AND FO R COST, THE FMV HAS TO BE TAKEN. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRE CTED TO ALLOW COST OF ACQUISITION ON THE BASIS OF FMV AS ON 01/04/1981 AM OUNTING TO 37,64,000/- AS PER DVO'S REPORT (AS AGAINST 38,48,000/- SUBMITTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER). ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T(A), WHEREIN HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE COST OF ACQUISIT ION ON THE BASIS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO RELEVANCE OF THE COST OF ACQUISIT ION AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A CONSENTING PARTY TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND H AD NOT SOLD HIS RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REMAND REPORT PLACED AT P AGE 3 OF PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS NOWHERE STATED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD BECOME OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND STRESSED THAT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS IN THE TITLE RECORDS I.E. 7/12 EXTRACT. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE COPY OF TH E TRANSLATED PARTNERSHIP DEED PLACED AT PAGES 64 TO 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT W AS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE SHARE IN THE SAID PROP ERTY TO THE EXTENT OF 46% AND WAS ALSO ENTITLED TO RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO THE EX TENT OF 8% OF THE NET PROFIT. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 38% SHARE IN TH E SAID PROPERTY AND IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THE SHARE IN THE CONSIDERATION RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.2.73 CRORES, WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. AGAINST THE SAID SHARE OF PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED THAT IT HAD DECLARED COST OF ACQUISITION AT 38%, WHICH WAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE ITA NO.1547/PN/2012 LATE SHRI DHONDU RAOJI CHINCHWADE 5 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT P LACED AT PAGES 35 TO 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLAIMS TO HAVE EXECUTED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 28.03.2006, COPY OF WHI CH IS PLACED AT PAGES 35 TO 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PREAMBLE OF THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REFLECTS THAT DR. JAYANT VISHWANATH DEO, MR. NAREND RA VINAYAK DEO, SMT. PADMA VINAYAK DEO, MRS. NEELIMA PATIL AND MRS. NEET A SUDARSHAN VAHIKAR HAVE EXECUTED THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 28.03.2006 AS OWNERS ALONG WITH M/S. MANGAL ENTERPRISES, A PARTNERSHIP F IRM REPRESENTED BY THE PRESENT PARTNER MR. DHONDO RAWAJI CHINCHWADE I.E. T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, AS CONSENTING PARTY AND ALSO SUVIDHA CO-OPERATIVE HOUS ING SOCIETY LTD., AS CONSENTING PARTY NO.2 WITH CERTAIN PERSONS AS CONSE NTING PARTY NO.3 WITH THE DEVELOPERS M/S. SHATMURTI REALTY PVT. LTD. AND M/S. GUFI GRAPHICS PVT. LTD. THE PREAMBLE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT ENLISTS THE ACQUISIT ION OF THE SAID PROPERTY BY THE CHINCHWAD DEVSTHAN TRUST. IT ALSO REFERS TO AN AGR EEMENT BETWEEN LATE MR. VINAYAK CHINTAMAN DEO AND THE ASSESSEE, UNDER WHICH , THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. MANGAL ENTERPRISES CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 08.0 2.1973 AND WHEREAS THE THREE PARTNERS DECIDED TO DEVELOP THE SAID ENTIRE L AND IN PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS AND ALSO SELL THE SAME. CONSEQUENT TO WHICH, CERTA IN THIRD PARTY INTEREST WAS CREATED IN THE SAID PROPERTY, WHOSE LIST IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE TO THE SAID DEED. IT HAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE PREAMBLE THAT THE OWNE RS AS WELL AS LATE MR. VINAYAK CHINTAMAN DEO AND MR. DHONDO RAWAJI CHINCHW ADE HAD EXECUTED THREE SEPARATE AGREEMENTS IN FAVOUR OF LATE MR. ASH OK VINAYAK BHAT, BY WHICH THEY HAD AGREED TO ENTRUST THE SAID ENTIRE LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT TO HIM. WHEREAS THE CONSENTING PARTY NO.3 WERE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF L ATE MR. ASHOK VINAYAK BHAT, WHO IN TURN HAD INHERITED THE RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND. FURTHER, THE CONSENTING PARTY NO.2 HAD PURCHASED A PORTION OF LA ND FROM CONSENTING PARTY NOS.1 AND 3 AND CONSEQUENTLY, HE ALSO HAD CERTAIN S HARE IN THE LAND. ITA NO.1547/PN/2012 LATE SHRI DHONDU RAOJI CHINCHWADE 6 CONSEQUENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, TH E ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.2.73 CRORES, WHEREAS THE OTHER PARTIES CUMULATIV ELY RECEIVED BALANCE OUT OF TOTAL OF RS.7.12 CRORES I.E. TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATI ON. THE FACTUM OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACC EPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO BE ADOPTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPE CT OF THE SAID SALE OF SHARE IN THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED , UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED RIGHTS IN THE SAID PROPERTY IS DATED 08.02 .1973 AND THE TRANSLATED COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 64 TO 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IS ALSO REFERRED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES WAS THAT SINCE IT HAD ACQUIR ED A RIGHT IN THE SAID PROPERTY PRIOR TO 01.04.1981, THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO WORK OUT TH E INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VI EW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED NIL COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE SAID PR OPERTY AND HAD ONLY ACQUIRED THE RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF ENTERING INTO A PA RTNERSHIP DEED WITH OTHER OWNERS, THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED AT NIL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US WAS THAT SINCE IT HAD THE RIGHTS IN THE SAID PROPERTY AS PART OWNER O F THE SHARE TO THE EXTENT OF 38%, WHICH IN TURN WAS EVIDENCED BY THE STATE RECOR DS, THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADOPTED AT NIL. 10. UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE ACT, ANY PROFIT AND GAI N ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET EFFECTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS CHAR GEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND IS TO BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. FOR COMPUTING CAPIT AL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, SECTION 48 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THE MODE O F COMPUTATION, UNDER WHICH IT WAS PROVIDED THAT FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERAT ION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET, THE EXPENDITUR E INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID TRANSFER AND ALSO THE C OST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET ITA NO.1547/PN/2012 LATE SHRI DHONDU RAOJI CHINCHWADE 7 AND COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO, IS TO BE DEDUC TED. IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE SAID ASSET IS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 01.0 4.1981, THEN THE COST TO BE ADOPTED IS THE VALUE OF ASSET AS ON 01.04.1981. TH E PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED IN VARIOUS INSTANCES WHERE THE PERSONS RE CEIVES THE PROPERTY ON DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS OF AN HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY UNDER A GIFT OR WILL OR BY SUCCESSION, INHERITANCE OR DEVOLUTION AND VARIOUS O THER TRANSACTIONS AND IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS, THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE COST INCU RRED FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQUIRING HIS RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW THER EOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE COST OF AC QUISITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ADOPTED AS NIL SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCURRED COST FOR ACQUIRING HIS RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMISED AND THE LEGAL HEIRS ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE REQUISITE INFORMATION. HOWEVER, THE 7/12 EXTRACT RECOGNIZES THE ASSESSEE AS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AN D HENCE, THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF HIS RIGHTS IN THE SAID PROPERTY. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS A CONSENTING PARTY T O THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE REVEN UE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE NOTINGS IN THE 7/12 EXTRACT AND ALSO IN THE MUTATION PAPERS I.E. FAR PA TRA. ACCORDINGLY, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO 01.04.1981, THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 01.04.1981 IS TO BE ADOPTED AS COST. 11. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL IS THAT THE ORIGINAL PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 08.02.1973 WAS NEVER PRODUCE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) AND WHETHER THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE COULD BE DECIDED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, WHICH WOULD HAVE S HOWN INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE PARTNERS AND AS TO HOW THE OWNE RSHIP WAS DEVOLVED UPON M/S. MANGAL ENTERPRISES. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECO GNIZED BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. MANGAL ENTERPRISES AS CONSENTING PARTIES AND THE PREAMBLE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT ALSO ENLISTS THE MANNER IN WH ICH THEY WERE IN POSSESSION WITH OWNERS. PURSUANT TO WHICH, THE PROPERTY WAS M UTATED IN THE NAME OF ITA NO.1547/PN/2012 LATE SHRI DHONDU RAOJI CHINCHWADE 8 ASSESSEE IN 7/12 EXTRACT AND ALSO IN THE MUTATION P APERS, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN TO BE A PART OWNER OF THE SAID IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN COMPUTED IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT NIL. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT (A), WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 27 TH APRIL, 2015 GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: - 1) THE DEPARTMENT; 2) THE ASSESSEE; 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-V, 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