N Padmaja Devi, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 2248/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4739 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT MAJUMDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: G KALYAN DAS
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Assessment record; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 55A; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING) ITA NO. 2248/ HYD/201 7 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12) SMT. NANDAMURI PADMAJA DEVI, RAMAKRISHNA 70 MM, NTR ESTATES, ABIDS, HYDERABAD - 500 001 PAN AAXPN 3203B VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.KALYAN DAS & SHRI A. HARISH. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROHIT MAJUMDAR (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 17.0 2 .2021. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .04. 2021. O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2014 - 15 ARISES FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, HYDERABAD S ORDER DT. 13.10.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO. 0088/CIT(A) - 2/HYD/2016 - 17 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES . C ASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE FACTS. 2. AUTHORITIES BE LOW ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING CAPITAL GAINS RS. 819.54 LAKHS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT ON SALE OF PROPERTY. 3. AUTHORITIES BELOW FURTHER ERRED IN ESTIMATING COST OF ACQUISITION FMV OF LAND AS ON 01 - 4 - 1981 AT RS. 2.51 LAKHS AGAINST RS. 21.90 LAKHS DETERMINED BY REGISTERED VALUER. 4. AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED, THAT SUBJECT LAND WAS SINCE PURCHASED BEFORE 01 - 04 - 1981, IN THE ABSENCE OF SRO/GOVT. NOTIFIED VALUE DURING 1976 T O 1995, FMV OF LAND HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 55(2)(B )(II) OF THE ACT, WAS DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AT RS. 21.90 LAKHS. 5. AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING OBJECTIONS MADE BEFORE DVO AND LD. AO WHILE ESTIMATING COST OF A CQUISITION OF LAND AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981. 6. AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN LAW IN MAKING REFERENCE TO DVO DIS 50C OF THE ACT FOR VALUATION OF ACQUISITION COST OF LAND AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AND CONSEQUENT VALUATION REPORT BEING INVALID AND IS BAD IN LAW. WITHOUT PRE JUDICE TO ABOVE THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT : 3 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 7. AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN LAW IN DETERMINING ACQUISITION COST OF LAND ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AT RS. 2.51 LAKHS PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SEC 55A OF THE ACT WHEN THE APPELLANT ADMITTED ACQUISITION COST AT HIGHER VAL UE AT RS. 21.90 LAKHS. 8. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS WHILE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY ADMITTED BY APPELLANT AT HIGHER VALUE AT RS. 21.90 LAKHS, AGAINST RS. 2.51 LAKHS DETERMINED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 55A OF THE ACT THE LD AO CANNOT REFER FOR VALUATION TO DVO AND CONSEQUENT VALUATION REPORT IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 9. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING COST OF LAND DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AT RS. 21.90 LAKHSIS BASED ON, WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL OR LOGICAL EXPLANATION AND THEREF ORE IS LABILE TO THROUGH INTO DUSTBIN. 10. THE LD CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AMOUNT OF RS.3.74 LAKHS SPENT BY THE APPELLANT'S HUSBAND IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. 11. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED BEFORE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL, APPELLANT PRAYS CAPITAL PAINS ADMITTED BY APPELLANT AT RS. 819.54 LAKHS LAKHS BE ACCEPTED OR GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF UNDER LAW. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS THEREAFTER FILED HER PETITION SEEKING TO RAISE THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS : 4 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 12. THE ID CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT SPENT RS.1,60,000 (RS.1,40,000 + RS.20,000) BY THE ASSESSEE'S HUSBAND ON CONSTRUCTION OF' RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE APPELLANT. 13. THE ID CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THE AMOUNT SPENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE BY APPELLANT'S HUSBAND WAS DISCLOSED IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURNS AND THE LD. AO HAVING VERIFIED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FACTS, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 14. THE ID CJT(A) GROSSLY ERRED I N LAW IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM ALLOWED BY THE LD. AO, RESULTING IN E NHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ISSUING ENHANCEMENT NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 4. L EARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ASSESSEES PETITION SEEKING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AT THIS LATER STAGE WHICH ALLEGEDLY TENDS TO ALTER THE ISSUES ALREADY RASIED . WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE REVENUES INSTANT TECHNICAL OBJECTI ON IN LIGHT OF HONBLE APEX COURT JUDGEMENT IN NTPC LTD VS. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) AS CONSIDER ED IN T RIBUNALS SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN ALL CARGO LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (MUM) THAT ANY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS COULD VERY WELL BE RAISED IN SEC .254 PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE CORRECT TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE PROVIDED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE 5 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 ALREADY ON RECORD. WE ACCORDINGLY ADMIT THE ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS OF PETITION. 5. WE NOW TAKE UP THE ASSESSEE'S FIRST AND FOREMOST GRIEVANCE SEEKI NG TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION MAKING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ADDITION OF RS.9,97,42,562 AS UPHELD IN THE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER AS FOLLOWS : 5. GROUNDS NO.2.1 TO 2.5, 5,6.7 AND 8.1 TO 9.2 OF APPEAL PERTAIN TO THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.2.50 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.21.90 LAKHS ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SRO GOVERNMENT VALUATION DURING THE PERIOD 1976 TO 1995 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55 (2)(B) OF THE ACT, THE FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS PER THE VALUATION OF THE REGISTERED VALUER AND RELIED UPON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS OF ITAT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION. THE REGISTERED VALUER DETERMINED THE FMV BASED ON THE IND EX VALUE ON REVERSE WORKING METHOD, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURTS INCLUDING THAT OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS ADITYA WAGHRAY &. ARPAN WAGHRAY DATED 30.12.2016. THE AO MADE REFERENCE TO OVO FOR DETERMINING THE FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 U/S.50C OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5OC ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND. THE DVO THROUGH HIS 6 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 COMMUNICATION TO THE APPELLANT REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5OC FOR DETERMINING THE FMV AND THE AR ENCLOSED COPIES OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DVO TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS FOR DETERMINATION OF FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 BY THE OVA IS NULL AND VOID AND HAVE NO SANCTITY OF LAW. THUS, THE FMV DETERMINED BY THE DVO AT RS.2.5 LAKHS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. FURTHER, THE AO ERRED IN LAW IN MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVOU/S.50C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW. FURTHERMORE, THE OVA HAVING DETERMINED THE VALUA TION OF THE LAND U/S.5OC OF THE ACT, MADE PASSING REFERENCE TO SECTION 55A WHILE OBJECTIONS WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND MADE VALUATION PURSUANT TO PROCEEDINGS U/S.50C OF THE ACT AND THUS THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE AO/DVO ARE BAD IN LAW. 5.1 WITHOUT PREJUD ICE TO THE ABOVE, EVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A HAVE NO APPLICATION FOR MAKING REFERENCE BY THE AA FOR VALUATION BY THE DVO FOR THE AY 2011 - 12 SINCE, AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT FOR MAKING REFERENCE FOR VALUATION WHEN THERE IS VARI ANCE WITH FMV CAME IN TO EFFECT ONLY FROM 01.07.2012 RELEVANT TO AY 2013 - 14. PRIOR TO THIS AMENDMENT, REFERENCE TO OVA CAN BE MADE ONLY WHEN THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IS LESS THAN THE FMV. WHEREAS, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASS ET ADOPTED BY THE VALUER AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.21.90 LAKHS IS HIGHER THAN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. 7 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. THE DETERMINATION OF FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND THE INDEXATION METHOD BY BACKWARD WORKING PROCESS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TRIBUNALS AND OTHER COURTS. BUT THIS BY ITSELF CANNOT GIVE CREDENCE TO THE VALUATION MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.21.90 LAKHS. THIS IS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE A SSESSEE PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY ON 22.01.1980 ONLY FOR RS.2.48IAKHS. IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO HOW THE VALUE OF THE LAND WOULD GO UP BY 8.75 TIMES IN A SHORT SPAN OF JUST 14 MONTHS. ON THE FACE OF IT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE REGISTER ED VALUER IS FANTASTIC AND BEYOND COMPREHENSION. THE BASIS ADOPTED IS VERY SIMPLISTIC AND RUDIMENTARY WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL/ LOGICAL EXPLANATION OR BASIS FOR SUCH WORKING. THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER CANNOT STAND THE TEST OF SCIENTIFIC/TEC HNICAL SCRUTINY AND THEREFORE IS LIABLE TO THROW INTO DUSTBIN. 6.1 COMING TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO TO THE DVO AND THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DVO, MY OBSERVATIONS ARE AS UNDER: - 6.1.1 FROM THE PERUSAL OF REFERENCE MADE BY THE A.O TO THE DVO AS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT NOWHERE IT WAS MENTIONED THE REFERENCE WAS MADE U/S 5OC OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, THE ALLEGED NOTICE GIVEN BY THE DVO TO THE APPELLANT THAT FMV IS BEING DONE U/S.5OC OF THE ACT IS OF LI TTLE RELEVANCE. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION THAT REFERENCE U/S.55A CANNOT BE 8 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 MADE TO THE DVO BEFORE 01.07.2012 WHEN THE COST OF CAPITAL ASSET IS MORE THAN FMV, IT IS MY CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5OC OR 55A ARE APPLICABLE WITH REGARD SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FMV OF THE ASSET, WHICH WAS ACQUIRED WAS SOUGHT TO BE ASCERTAINED, RATHER THAN THE PROPERTY WHICH IS SOLD. SINCE, THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF SRO AS ON 01.04.1981, THE AO CHOSE TO AVAIL THE SERVICES OF THE DVO FOR ARRIVING AT THE FMV AS ON 01.04.1981. IT CANNOT BE THE CONTENDED THAT THE AO CANNOT AVAIL THE SERVICES OF EXPERTS AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6.1.2 FROM THE REPORT OF THE DVO, IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND ARRIVED THE FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.2.50 LAKHS. ON THE FACE OF IT, THE REPORT OF THE DVO APPEARS REASONABLE AND WELL CONSIDERED, SINCE THE ESTIMATION BY HIM AS ON1.04.1981 AT RS.2.50 LAKHS IS ALMOST REASONABLE AND NEAR TO THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION AS ON 22.01.1980 OF RS.2.84 LAKHS (INCLUDING REGISTRATION CHARGES AND STAMP DUTY) WHEREAS, THE REGISTERED VALUER ESTIMATED THE SAME AT A FAN TASTIC FIGURE OF RS.21.90 LAKHS. 6.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CONTENTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED LTCG ADDITION. L EARNED AUTHORIZED 9 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 REPRESENTATIVE STATED AT THE BAR THAT THE ACTUAL DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET INVOLVED HEREIN IS 1.9.1980 SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH AN ISSUE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) THEREOF U/S. 48( II ) R.W.S. EXPL (III) R.W.S. 55A OF THE ACT. HE SOUGHT TO BUTTRESS THE POINT THAT ALTHOUGH ITS COST OF ACQUISITION AS PER THE PURCHASE D EED WAS RS.98,500 ONLY QUA THE AREA INVOLVING 1370 SQ. M., THE SAME COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS FMV U/S.55 A OF THE ACT AS ON 1.4.1981. LEARNED COUNSEL MADE A VERY STRON G ENDEAVOUR TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THE SUB - REGISTRAR OFFICE (SRO) RATE S IN AND AROUND HYDERABAD REMAIN ED UNCHANGED FROM THE YEAR 1976 TO 2005 WHICH SUFFICIENTLY INDICATE S THAT THEY COULD O NLY BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING STAMP DUTY FOR REA LIZING REVENUE THAN FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS . 7. LEARNED COUNSEL NEXT REFERRED TO SECTION 55A(A) ; BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1.7.2012 , THAT THE SAME CONT AINED THE CLINCHING STATUTORY EXPRESSION LESS THAN ITS FMV ONLY . M EANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE'S REGISTERED VALUER S REPORT HAD RIGHTLY DETERMINED THE FMV OF 10 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 THE CAPITAL AS SET @ RS.1038 PER SQ. YARD TURNING OUT TO BE MUCH MORE THAN FMV AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DIS TURBED THE SAME AS PER THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CIT VS. GAURANGINIBEN S SHODHAN (2014) 367 ITR 23 (GUJ). LEARNED COUNSEL LASTLY PLACED BEFORE US A CATENA OF CASE LAW OF THIS T RIBUNALS CO - ORDINATE BENCHES A S UPH E LD HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ; ESTIMATING THE FMV TO BE MUCH MORE THAN THAT DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. 8. LEARNE D DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE HAS PLACED A VERY STRONG RELIANCE ON BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION RE JECTING ASSESSEE'S REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATIONS TO RIVAL PLEADINGS. SUFFICE TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE'S ENDEA VOUR HEREIN TO CLAIM THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF ITS CAPITAL ASSET AS PER HER REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT GOING BY SEC. 55A(A), ITS AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE, THIS VALUATION REPORT TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTED @ RS.1308 PER SQ. YARD AS ON 1.4.1981. ALL THESE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO EVOKE OUR CONCURRENCE. THIS IS MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS HARDLY ANY TIME GAP WORTH COUNTING 11 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 BETWEEN THE DATE OF ASSESSEE'S PURCHASE DEED I.E. 1.9.1980 AND THE STATUTORY CLAUSES OF COST OF ACQUISITION I.E. 1.4.1981 RESPECTIVEL Y. AND ALSO THAT HER REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT DT.30.1.2015 IN PAGES 33 - 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK DOES NOT EVEN MAKE A MENTION IF AT ALL HE HAD EVEN TRIED TO FIND ANY COMPARABLE CASE IN THE CONCERNED MASAB TANK LOCALITY. THIS REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT DES ERVES REJECTION ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THESE CLINCHING ASPECT(S). W E RATHER NOTICE THAT THE DVOS REPORT DT.30.3.2016 (PAGES 24 - 32) HAS DULY CONSIDERED COMPARABLE CASE(S) RESULTING IN AVERAGE FMV OF RS. 118 .05 PER SQ. YARD ONLY . THE ASSESSEE'S LEGAL AS WELL AS TECHNICAL PLEAS SEEKING TO CLAIM HER FMV AS PER REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT GO AGAINST THE COMPARABLE CASES AND STAND DECLINED FOR THE VERY REASONS THEREFORE. 10. COMING TO ASSESSEE'S LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT THE LEGISLAT URE HAS USED THE CLINCHING ST ATUTORY EXPRESSIONS FAIR MARKET VALUE ONLY , WE FIND PRIMA FACIE FORCE IN HER STAND THAT THE PURPOSE OF STAMP VALUATION IS TO COLLECT REVENUE ONLY THAN THAT OF THE FMV WHICH IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER 12 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 OF A CAPITAL ASSET. H E FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ESTIMATING FMV DO NOT DESERVE TO BE FOLLOWED IN ENTIRETY AS PER HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) CIT VS. B R CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. (FB) THAT ANY DECISION NO T BASED ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND THE CORRESPONDING STATUTE BUT ON MERE ESTIMATION OF FMV; ADOPTING ONE OR THE OTHER PRICE AS PER MIDDLE PATH, WOULD NOT FORM A JUDICIAL PRECEDEN T . THE FACT ALSO RE MAINS THAT THIS ISSUE OF FMV OF A CAPITAL ASSET W.E.F. 1.4.1981 HAS WITNESSED MANY B OOMS AND SLUMPS IN THE INTERVENING TIME SPAN OF FOUR DECADES AS ON DATE. WE KEEP IN MIND ALL THESE ASPECTS AND HOLD THAT FMV OF THE ASSESSEE'S CAPITAL ASSET @ RS.400 PER SQ. YARD BY APPLYING THUMB RULE WOULD BE JUST AND PROPER IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITH A RIDER THAT THE SAME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THIS FORMER ISSUE IS PARTLY ACCEPTED IN ABOVE TERMS. 1 1 . WE NEXT ADVE RT TO ASSESSEE'S ADDITIONAL GROUND S(SUPRA) AND NOTICE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION IN PARAS 7.7.3 THAT HE HAS REJECTED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF HER HUSBAND 13 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 TO HAVE SPENT RS.1,60,000 (RS.1,40,000 IN A.Y. 1989 - 90 AND RS.20,000 IN A.Y. 1990 - 91); RESPECTIVELY AND THAT TOO, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY SUCH DISALLOWANCE. THIS IS A CLEAR CUT INSTANCE OF ENHANCEMENT U/S. 251(1) OF THE ACT WITHOUT EVEN ISSUING NOTICE TO THIS EFFECT. WE THUS REVERSE THE CIT(A)S IMPUGNED ACTION ON T HIS COUNT ALONE. THE ASSESSEE'S 12 & 13 SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS ARE ACCEPTED. NECESSARY COMPUTATION SHALL FOLLOW AS PER LAW. 12. NO OTHER GROUND HAS BEEN PRESSED BEFORE US. 1 3 . THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH APRIL, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DT. 30 .04 .2021. * REDDY GP 14 ITA NO. 2248/HYD/2017 COPY TO : 1. SM T. NANDAMURI PADMAJA DEVI, RAMAKRISHNA 70 MM, NTR ESTATES, ABIDS, HYDERABAD - 500 001 2. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD. 3. PR. C I T - 2 , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - 2, HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PVT. SECRETARY, ITAT, HYDERABAD.