Asstt.. Comm. Of Income Tax. Circle 1 (1), Panaji V. Shri. Sripad V. Zuarkar, Goa

ITA 227/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 22724114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINAY SINGH RAWAT LD
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, AM & SHRI D.T GARASIA, JM ] I.T . A NO . 2 27 /PNJ/201 3 A.Y . 200 7 - 08 ACIT, C IR - 1(1) , PANAJI VS. SHRI SRIPAD V. ZUARKAR PA N:AAHPZ2193C ( DEPARTMENT ) ( RESPONDENT ) C.O NO . 45 /PNJ/201 3 [ITA NO. 2 27/ PNJ/201 3 A.Y 200 7 - 08 ] SHRI SRIPAD V. ZUARKAR VS. ACIT, CIR - 1(1) , PANAJI ( CROSS OBJECTOR/ASSESSEE ) ( R ESPONDENT /DEPARTMENT ) I.T.A NO . 228/PNJ/2013 A.Y. 2007 - 08 ACIT, CIR - 1(1), PANAJI VS. SMT. SNEHALATA SHRIPAD ZUARKAR PAN:AAHPZ2192D ( DEPARTMENT ) ( RESPONDENT ) C.O NO . 4 6 /PNJ/2013 [ITA NO. 22 8 /PN J/2013 A.Y 2007 - 08] SMT. SNEHALATA SHRIPAD ZUARKAR VS. ACIT, CIR - 1(1), PANAJI ( CROSS OBJECTOR/ASSESSEE ) ( RESPONDENT /DEPARTMENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT /DEPARTMENT : SHRI VINAY SINGH RAWAT, LD.DR FOR THE CROSS OBJECTOR /ASSESSEE : SHRI V.Y PAWAR, ADVOCATE, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING: 27 - 11 - 201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12 - 0 1 - 2015 / ORDER PER SHRI D.T GARASIA, J M: ALL THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) , PANAJI DATED 2 4 - 05 - 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08 . 2. THE ABOVE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS PERTAIN TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THESE AR E DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA NOS. 227 & 228/PNJ/2013 FOR THE A.Y 2007 - 08: - 2 ITA NO S. 227,228 & CO NOS.45,46/PNJ/2013 - SHRI SRIPAD V.ZUARKAR & SMT. SNEHALATA SHRIPAD ZUARKAR 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AAPPEAL), PANAJIS ORDER IS OPPOSE D TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD.CIT(A ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ENHANCED THE RATE OF LAND TO RS.17/ - WHEREIN, THE AO ADOPTED FAIR VALUE OF RS.11/ - PER SQ. MTR FOR UNDEVELOPED BIG AREA FOR THE YEAR 1981 FOR CALCULATION OF INDEXED COST AFTER ASCERTAINING THE AVERAGE COST FROM THE SUB - REGISTRAR. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE AFTER OBTAINING INFORMATION FROM THE SUB - REGISTRAR WHEREIN SALE INSTANCES HAD TAKEN PLACE DURING 1981 IN THE VILLAGE OF PANELIM, GOA, VELHA, CORLIM, BAINGUINIM AND GANCIM APART FROM THE VILLAGE CURCA, WHERE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS SITUATED. THE RATE ADOPTED AT RS.11 PER SQ. MTR. IS THE AVERAGE RATE WORKED OUT AS PER THE REPORT OF THE SUB - REGISTRAR AT A VALUE OF AT RS.11/ - PER SQ. MTR. AS VALUE OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY INCOME - TAX INSPECTOR REPORTING AROUND RS.15 - 16 PER SQ. MTR. AS THE VALUE DURING THAT POINT OF TIME BY MAKI NG LOCAL ENQUIRY IN THE CASE OF BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE AS THE AO HAS ADOPTED ONLY RS.3.75 PER SQ. MTR IN THAT CASE. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HIS FINDINGS, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS NOT DEVELOPED AND IS BIGGER IN SIZE WHEREAS THE REPORT SUBMI TTED BY VALUER IS OF DEVELOPED PLOTS AND THE AO HAS REASONABLY ADOPTED RS.11/ - PER SQ. MTR AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE SUB - REGISTRAR. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO MODIFY, ADD AND DELETE ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 4. IN THE C.O NO S . 45 & 46 /PNJ/201 3 [ITA NO S . 227 & 228 /PNJ/201 3 A.Y 200 7 - 08 ] THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS : - 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT AS A CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX ALTHOUGH IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH DOES NOT COME WITHIN TH E LIMITS PRESCRIBED IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(A) AND 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX 1961. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS HELD THAT THE TRANSFERRED LAND IN QUESTION IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF PANAJI WHICH IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THIS MATTER. 3 ITA NO S. 227,228 & CO NOS.45,46/PNJ/2013 - SHRI SRIPAD V.ZUARKAR & SMT. SNEHALATA SHRIPAD ZUARKAR 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSFERRED LAND IN QUESTION IS NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THA T THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT CULTIVATED THE SAID LAND, WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THIS MATTER ALSO. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS. 17/ - PER SQUARE AS AGAINST RS.65.84 PER SQUARE METER CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS, THE RESPONDENT PRAYS THAT THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NO T COMING WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 2(24)(III)(A) OR 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND AS SUCH NOT LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 6 ABOVE, THE RESPONDENT PRAYS THAT THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TRANSFERRED LAND AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.65.84 PER SQUARE METER AS CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT AS AGAINST RS.17/ - PER SQU ARE METER AS HELD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 8. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY, ADD AND DELETE ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TI ME OF HEARING OF THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS. 5 . COMMON SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 5A OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. BOTH ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ARE COVERED UNDER SECTION 5A OF THE I.T ACT 1 961. HOWEVER, T HE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD OUT A PART OF THE LANDED PROPERTY IN FOUR PARCELS OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.32/0,33/0 AND 34/0 ADMEASURING 2,18,867 SQ.MTR TO M/S. RPA PROMOTERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD AND M/S. TRINITY LAND BASE PVT. LTD ON A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,73,32,758/ - . . THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN THE VILLAGE OF GOVALIM - MOULA, TALUKA TISWADI AND SUB - DISTRICT ILHAS, DISTRICT OF NORTH GOA, WITHIN THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF CURCA, ILHAS, GOA. THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE ABOVE SALE P ROCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 HAS BEEN DETERMINED ADOPTING THE RA T E OF RS.68.64 PER SQ.MTR AND AFTER INDEXATION, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION IS ARRIVED AT RS.7,79,69,530 AND THE CAPITAL LOSS HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT RS.2,0 6,36,7778/ - (HALF SHARE UNDER SECTION. 5A IS RS.1,03,18,389/ - ). IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AS IT IS NON - AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY OF LAND, HE HAS TAKEN THE RATE AT RS.11/ - PER.SQ.MTR BEING AVERAGE RATE AND COMPUTED THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.2,24,18,817/ - . 4 ITA NO S. 227,228 & CO NOS.45,46/PNJ/2013 - SHRI SRIPAD V.ZUARKAR & SMT. SNEHALATA SHRIPAD ZUARKAR 6 . MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 . THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE BOT H ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A). 8 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION. IN CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE ADDITI ONAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US BY WAY OF PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN THE VILLAGE OF GOVALIM - MOULA . THE ASSESSEES P ROPERTY IS SITUATED AT VILLAGE GOVALIM AND NEAREST MUNICIPALITY IS PANJIM MUNICIPALITY . THE DISTANCE FROM CCP BOUNDARY VIA MERCES TO BATIM TO MOULA VILLAGE IS 14.7 KMS . (APPROX) AND CCP BOUNDARY TO MOULA VIA MERCES,CURCA IS ABOUT 11.4 KMS . AS PER CENSOR C ERTIFICATE THE POPULATION OF THE VILLAGE IS 441 ONLY. THEREFORE, THE POPULATION IS LESS THAN 10,000 THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE VILLAGE IS MORE THAN 8 KMS. THEREFORE, THIS LAND SHOULD BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LA ND. IF THIS LAND IS TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY CAPITAL GAINS TAX. 9. THE LD.DR HAS OBJECTED TO IT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE OF RECENT CENSOR CERTIFICATE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF DISTANCE CERTIFICATE FOR THE FIRST TIME ALSO BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE AO HAD NO CHANCE TO VERIFY THE SAME . THUS, HE PRAYED BEFORE US THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SAME. 10. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LEGAL ISSUE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US . THEREFORE, AS P ER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TOLLARAM HASSOMAL REPORTED IN (2008) 298 22(MP) THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SAME. THE HON'BLEMP HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE HAS HELD AS U NDER: - HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAVING PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE FOUR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TREATING THEM TO BE LEGAL GROUNDS IN APPEAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH ON ALL THE ISSUES 5 ITA NO S. 227,228 & CO NOS.45,46/PNJ/2013 - SHRI SRIPAD V.ZUARKAR & SMT. SNEHALATA SHRIPAD ZUARKAR INCLUDING ON THOSE FOUR GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RATHER THAN TO DECIDE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ON THE MERITS FOR THE FIRST TIME BY ITSELF. 11. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE US FOR FIRST TIME. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO VERIFY ALL THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BY THE AO. THE AO SHOULD ASCERTAIN ALL THE FACT S FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY. HE IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE . THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECT IN IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NOS.227 & 228/PNJ/2013 (BY THE DEPARTMENT) 1 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD.DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JOINT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.222 - 22 3/PNJ/2013 & CO NOS.42 - 43/PNJ/2013 FOR THE A.Y 2007 - 08 VIDE ORDER DATED 25/10/2013 ON IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS AND THAT OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO WORK THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1 - 4 - 19 81 AT RS.25/ - PER.SQ.MTR. THEREFORE, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL S ON THIS ISSUE MAY BE DISMISSED AND GROUND NOS. 5 & 7 OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS MAY BE ALLOWED . 1 3 . THE LD.AR HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.DR. 1 4 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE T RIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.222/223 & CO NOS.42/43/PNJ/2013 DATED 25 - 10 - 2013 HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD.AR BEFORE US RELIED ON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER, KIREN GEDAM, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED BEFORE US AT PG. 4 - 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE NOTED FROM THE SAID VALUATION REPORT THAT THE INSTANCES DOES NOT RELATE TO THE VILLAGE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED. EVEN THE INSTANCES GIVEN IN THE VALUATION REPORT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE TIME. EVEN THE INSTANCES RELATE TO SMALLER PLOT, AREA OF WHICH IS BETWEEN 300 - 500 SQ. MTRS. EVEN THE PLOTS DO NOT RELATE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND. UNDER THESE FA CTS, IN OUR OPINION, THE INSTANCES GIVEN BY THE APPROVED VALUER CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE COMPARATIVE INSTANCES. COMPARATIVE INSTANCES SHOULD RELATE TO THE LOCALITY, TIME OF THE SALE AND AREA OF THE PLOT MUST BE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO THE IMPUGNED AREA. EVEN THE NATURE OF THE LAND SHOULD ALSO BE THE SAME. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THERE ARE EVIDENCES ON RECORD BEFORE THE AO THAT NO LAND W A S SOLD IN THE SAID VILLAGE IN 1981 AND THEREFORE, NO COMPARATIVE INSTANCES RELATING TO THE SAME VILLAGE WERE 6 ITA NO S. 227,228 & CO NOS.45,46/PNJ/2013 - SHRI SRIPAD V.ZUARKAR & SMT. SNEHALATA SHRIPAD ZUARKAR AVAILABLE BUT ON THE BASIS OF THE SURROUNDING VILLAGE, NATURE OF THE LAND AND KEEPING IN THE A REA OF THE LAND, THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX HAS WORKED OUT THE AVERAGE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AT RS.25/ - PER SQ. MTR. THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENC E ON RECORD HAS SIMPLY REJECTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTOR AND ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.3.75 PER SQ.MTR. THE SUB - REGISTRAR HAS ALSO CITED INSTANCES FROM THE SURROUNDING VILLAGES WHERE THE RATE VARIES FROM RS.0.96 TO RS. 70/ - PER SQ. MTR. NO DOUBT, IN THE CASE OF THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE OTHER INSPECTOR HAS WORKED OUT THE AVERAGE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.15 - 16/ - PER.SQ. MTR. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT FAIR MARKET VALUE BEING DETERMINED BY DIFFERENT PERSONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO CANNOT TAKE THE LEAST FAIR MARKET VALUE SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE INSPECTOR OF THE SAME OFFICE HAS DULY VERIFIED THE NATURE OF THE LAND AND HAS ALSO COLLECTED THE VARIOUS SALE INSTANCES OF THE COMPARATIVE VILLAGES, THEREFORE, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE, IN OUR OPINION, THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 BE TAKEN AT RS.25/ - PER SQ. MTR. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET MEANS THE PRICE THAT CAPITAL A SSET WOULD ORDINARILY FETCH ON SALE IN THE O PEN MARKET ON THE RELEVANT DATE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THERE IS NO RULE PRESCRIBED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THIS REGARD, UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN OUR OPINION, IT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ADOPT T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO WORK OUT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.25/ - PER SQ. MTR. THUS, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED WHILE THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, THE BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AND GROUND NOS. 5 & 7 OF BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF T HE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 - 01 - 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( P. K. BANSAL ) ( D.T GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12/01/2015 7 ITA NO S. 227,228 & CO NOS.45,46/PNJ/2013 - SHRI SRIPAD V.ZUARKAR & SMT. SNEHALATA SHRIPAD ZUARKAR **PRADIP (SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. A PPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. 5. THE CIT CONCERNED THE D . R 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .