The ITO, Ward-9(1)., Ahmedabad V. Shri Pravin Amrutlal Patel, Ahmedabad

ITA 2528/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 252820514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: K P SHAH
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Cost of acquisition; Date of conversion; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER THE ITO WARD 9(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL, 190-1085, VISHNUNAGAR,NR. SHIVSHAKTI NAGAR, SABARMATI ROAD AHEMEDABAD PAN: AMYPP8142L (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI K.P. SHAH, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-01-201 4 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 02-08-2012. 2. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUND:- ITA NO. 2528/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I.T.A NO.2528/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,15,335/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ON SALE OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND . 3. BRIEF FACTS AS GATHERED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH CONTENTIONS OF BOTH AO AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- (A) IN THIS CASE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED O N 31/03/2011(INWARD ACK. NO. 24202276) SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,47,360/-. THE RETURN WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S. 143 (1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS . THE NOTICE U/S, 143(2) OF THE I. T. ACT, ISSUED ON 25/08/2011 WAS S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON EXA MINE OF AIR INFORMATION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE AND AMONG THREE OTHERS EACH HAVE 25% SHARE HAD SOLD NON AGRICULTURE LAND WORTH OF RS. L,85,00,000/- ON 13.05.2008 SITUATED AT SURVEY NO. 603, T.P SCHEME NO. 22 , FINAL PLOT NO. 128, MAUJE:- CHANDKHEDA, DIST- GAND HINAGAR ADMEASURING OF 2194 SQ, MT. ON VERIFICATION OF RETU RN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT SHOWN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISE OF THE SAID LAND FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS. 46,25,000/- (25% OF ASSESSEE'S SHARE OF RS. 1,85,00,000/-). IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE THIS OFFICE NOTICE U/S. 142 (1) OF THE I T ACT DATED 02.12.2011 TO FURNISH DETAILS OF PURCHASE/SALES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESS EE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF SALES DEED DATED 13 05.2008 MADE BETWEEN DE VNANDAN REALTY PVT. LTD. (PURCHASER) V/S. (1) SHRI AMRUTBHAI SOMAB HAI (2) HEMANTKUMAR AMRUTLAL (3) PRAVINKUMAR AMRUTLAL (ASSE SSEE) AND (4) PRAFULCHANDRA AMRUTLAL (SELLER). FURTHER, ON VERIFI CATION OF STATEMENT OF INCOME ATTACHED WITH RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS SEE N THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION O F RS.1,56,238/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE O F SAID LAND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. I.T.A NO.2528/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL 3 (B) IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 19/12/ 11 OF A.O. : THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT OF SHRI V. G. SUTHAR (GOVT. REGISTERED VALUER) DATED 12.05.200S OF THE S AID LAND. IN HIS REPORT, HE HAS VALUED THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 PER SQ. METER OF RS 960/- AND VALUED THE ENTIRE LAND OF RS.30,10,560/- ON WHICH ASSESSEE'S SHARE COMES TO RS. 7,52,640/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN STATEMENT AS UND ER WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME:- SR NO. PARTICULAR S DATE OF SALE DATE OF PURCHASE SALES VALUE PURCHASE VALUE PURCHAS E INDEXED GAIN 1. LAND S. NO. 603 13.05.2008 01.04.1981 4625000 752640 4380365 24463 5 INDEX OF 2008-09:582 (C) THE INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) OF THE I T ACT HAS BEEN CALLED ON 28.12.11 FROM THE DY. COLLECTOR (STAMP DUTY VALUATI ON), AHMEDABAD, FOR JANTRY RATE PER SQ. MT. (VALUE OF THE AGRICULTU RE LAND PER SQ. MT.) IN THE F.Y. 1981-82. THE DY. COLLECTOR (STAMP DUTY VALUATION), AHMEDABAD HAS SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) OF THE I T ACT ON 28.12.2011 AND STATED THAT THE IN THE YEAR 1981- 82 THE JANTRY WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT. THE JANTRY RATE WAS APPLICABLE IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE YEAR OF 1 999. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE JANTRY RATE WILL BE AVAILABLE AT TH E OFFICE OF DY. COLLECTOR (STAMP DUTY VALUATION), GANDHINAGAR. ACCO RDINGLY, FURTHER INFORMATION U/S. 133 (6) OF THE I T ACT CALLED FROM DY. COLLECTOR (STAMP DUTY VALUATION), GANDHINAGAR ON 23.12.2011. THE INSPECTOR OF THIS OFFICE WAS DEPUTED TO COLLECT THIS INFORMAT ION AND HE HAS COLLECTED THE INFORMATION OF JANTRY RATE OF THE SAI D AGRICULTURE LAND. ON VERIFICATION OF CHART OF JANTRY RATE OF DY. COLL ECTOR (STAMP DUTY VALUATION), GANDHINAGAR, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE JA NTRY RATE OF SAID AGRICULTURE LAND PER HECTOR I.E . 10,000 SQ. MT. WAS OF RS. 8,00,000/- APPLICABLE IN 01. 04.1999. I.E. RS 80/- PER SQ MT. (8,00,000/10,000). (D) THE A.O. AT PARA 5 OF ASSTT. ORDER HELD THAT : I.T.A NO.2528/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL 4 'IN THE ABSENCE OF JANTRY VALUE OF F.Y. 1981-82 THE PURCHASED VALUE TAKEN OF RS. 80/- IN THIS AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH IS AVAILABLE AND APPLICABLE IN 01.04.1999 IN THIS LAND BY THE STATE GOVT. OF GUJARAT. ACCORDINGLY, AS PER THE STATE GOVERNMENT RULES THE LAND PER SQ. RNETER OF THE SAID AGRICULTURE LAND IS ALSO TAKEN IN THIS CASE OF RS. 80/- IN THE ABSENCE OF RATE OF F.Y. 1981-82. THE CAPITAL GAIN W ORKING AFTER TAKING THE VALUE OF R S . 80/- FOR PURCHASE PRICE IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER:- RS. 80X3136 SQ. MT. = RS. 2,50,880/- (TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND) RS. 2,50, 880 = RS. 62,720/- (1/4 TH ASSESSEES SHARE) 4 (SHARE) INDEX OF 2008-09 :582 INDEX OF 1981 :100 (E) THE A O. FURTHER AT PARA 3.6 OF ASSTT. ORDER HELD THAT: 'SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED THE C OST OF ACQUISITION BY TAKING THE INFLATED RATE OF LAND BY SUBMITTING THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY NOT SHOWN WHILE FILING THE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IN SPITE OF HE HAS RECEIVED SALES CONSIDERA TION OF RS. 46,25,000/-, THE SAME HAS BEEN REJECTED AND THE COR RECT COST OF ACQUISITION IS WORKED OUT AS ABOVE TAKING INTO CONS IDERATION THE INFORMATION FROM LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF GOVT. O F GUJARAT. THEREFORE, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 42,59 , 970/- AS WORKED OUT OF ABOVE IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME.' 4. LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY HIM IN HIS O RDER HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- SR NO. PARTICULAR S DATE OF SALE DATE OF PURCHASE SALES VALUE PURCHASE VALUE PURCHASE INDEXED CAPITAL GAIN 1. LAND S. NO.603 15.05.2008 01.04.1981 46,25,000 62,720 3,65,030 42, 59,970 I.T.A NO.2528/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL 5 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS AS ENUMERATED BY A.O. IS THE ASSTT. ORDER AND AS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE PERUSED THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY APPELLANT. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS, SUBMISSION AN D CONTENTIONS OF BOTH A.O. AS WELL AS APPELLANT, I AM PARTIALLY AGRE E WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE FACTS & CIR CUMSTANCES AS THAT OF APPELLANT THE A.O COULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DISTT. VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 55A OF THE ACT OR ALSO SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF REGD. VALUER AS GIVEN BY APPELLANT. HOWEVER ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT APPELLAN T WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT NO CAPITAL GAIN IS REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SINCE TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO AGRI CULTURAL LAND OR PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF A PPELLANT'S HUF HAS NO FORCE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FROM THE FACTS OF TH E CASE THAT APPELLANT AS WELL AS OTHER CO-OWNERS HAS NOT REFLECTED EVEN NOT INDICATED THIS TRANSACTION IN THEIR CORRESPONDING RETURNS OF INCOM E FOR A.Y. 09-10 AND THE TRANSACTION HAS COME INTO LIGHT ONLY THROUG H ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN (AIR). FURTHER AS DISCUSSED IN F ACTS AND EVIDENT THAT IN THE SALE DEED THE APPELLANT SIGNED AND ENTE RED INTO TRANSACTION IN THE CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUAL AND NOT IN HIS HUF CA PACITY. FURTHER, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR HIS HUF INDICATING T HIS TRANSACTION EVEN AFTER THE SECURITY OF THIS CASE TILL DATE, HEN CE THE CONTENTION THAT THIS TRANSACTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN HIS HUF CA PACITY HAS NO JUSTIFICATION AND REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED. THE APP ELLANT RELIED ON HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ITO V /S CH. ATCHAIAH (1996) 84 TAX MAN 630 WHERE IT IS HELD THAT INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF RIGHT PERSON AND A O. IS NOT PRECEDED TO TAX THE RIGHT PERSON EVEN IF THE WRONG PERSON IS ALREADY TAXED FO R THAT INCOME IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. THE FACT A BOUT TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND AT RS. 1.85 CR. WITH CO O WNERSHIP OF FOUR PARTIES WITH 25% SHARE FOR EACH IS NOT DISPUTED. I T IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT EXCEPT THIS RECEIPT ALL OTHER EXPENDI TURE ARE MET OUT BY BUYER INCLUDING THE EXPENDITURE OF NON AGRI. CONVER SION. IT IS THEREFORE THE ONLY DISPUTE IS IN RESPECT OF COMPUTA TION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THIS TRANSACTION AND SHARE OF APPEL LANT OUT OF IT. I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE RATIO OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREELEKHA BANERJEE V/S CIT (49 ITR 112) AS REL IED ON BY APPELLANT WHERE IN HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT: I.T.A NO.2528/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL 6 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT REJECTS SUCH EVIDENCE IT MUS T EITHER SHOW AN INHERENT WEAKNESS IN EXPLANATION OR REBUT IT BY PUT TING TO THE ASSESSEE SOME INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE WHICH IT HAS IN ITS PO SSESSION. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BY MERELY REJECTING UNREASONABLY A GOOD EXPLANATION CONVERT GOOD PROOF INTO NO PROOF. THE A.O. NOT ONLY GIVEN THE MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF A SSTT. PROCEEDINGS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM DY. COLLECTOR, GANDHINAG AR TO THE APPELLANT BUT ALSO HAS NOT POINTED OUT DEFEAT/DEFAC ING IN THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT FROM AUTHORIZED VALUE R. FURTHER THE A.O. HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF ACTION 55A OF THE ACT WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. E VEN IN SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT, FOR THE REFERENCE UNDER AT SECTI ON TO DVO THERE HAS TO BE DISSATISFACTION ABOUT THE REPORT OF AUTH. VAL UER IF SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT. ON THE OTHER HAND, I AM ALSO INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT A.O. HIMSELF HAS A LSO NOT TAKEN CORRECT VALUATION FROM SUCH DETAILS I.E. RS. 80 PER SQ. ML. RATE IS TAKEN ON LE BASIS OF RATE OF RS 8 LACS PER HECTOR FOR IRR IGATED AGRI. LAND BUT IN THE SAME DETAIL JANTRI RATE FOR NON AGRI, LAND I S GIVEN AT RS. 1900/SQ MT. THESE RATES WERE FOR 1999 AND THEREFOR E THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE TAMPERED DOWN FROM 1999 TO 1981 CONS IDERING THE VARIOUS FACTORS. THE VALUATION MADE BY THE AUTH. VALUER ON THE BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION HAS INCORPORATED VARIOUS FACTOR AND IN A PROPER - S CIENTIFIC MANNER JANTRI RATE PREVAILING AS ON 08-09 OF THIS PLOT AT RS. 5000/SQ MT. WAS DULY TAPERED DOWN WITH THE HELP OF RATIO OF COST IN FLATION INDEX FOR 1981 AND 08-09 SO TO ARRIVE AT THE BASIC PRICE OF R S. 800/ SQ. MT.. THIS WAS FURTHER INCREASED BY 20% CONSIDERING OTHER FACT OR BY HIM TO ARRIVE AT PRICE ON 1981 AT RS. 960/SQ. MT.. I AM SA TISFIED WITH THE PROCEDURE AND MAKING OF GOVT REGISTERED VALUER IN T HIS REGARD. IN FACT, IN THE CASE OF OTHER CO OWNER I.E. SHRI HERNA NT AMRUTLAL PATEL FOR THE SAME TRANSACTION ON THE BASIS OF SAME VALUATION , ITO WD 9(2) AHMEDABAD VIDE PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER DT. 13/12/11 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS 2,44,635 ARRIVED AT THROUGH THE VALUATION OF SAME GOVT. REGISTERED VALUER. HO N'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S KUMARASANI SMT. MEENAK SHI ACHI (2007) 158 TAXMAN 4 HELD THAT WHERE DURING SAME ASSTT YEAR , SAME QUANTITY I.T.A NO.2528/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL 7 OF WEALTH IN POSSESSION OF ONE CO-SHARER IS SUBJECT ED TO A LOWER RATE OF TAXATION, IF WOULD BE HIGHLY IMPROPER TO BURDEN A S IMILARLY SITUATED CO SHARER WITH A HIGHER RATE OF TAX. IT IS THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE VALUATION MADE BY GOVT REGD VALUER FO R COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/81, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN OF RS. 2,44,635 SO WORKED OUT AS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT AND ALSO DI SCUSSED BY A.O. IN ASSTT. ORDER IS TREATED AS PROPER AND JUSTIFIABLE. THE ADDITION TO THIS INTENT IS THEREFORE UPHELD. THE BALANCE OF RS. 40, 15,335/- (4259970- 244635) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT G ETS RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 5. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE US IS WHETHER WHILE VALUING TH E LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 FOR CALCULATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE SAM E SHOULD BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NON AGRICULTURAL LAND. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT AS ON 01-04-1981 THIS LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LA ND WHICH WAS CONVERTED SUBSEQUENTLY INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SOLD AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAK EN THE VALUATION OF THE LAND AT RS. 960 PER SQUARE METER ON THE BASIS OF VA LUATION DETERMINED BY A GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER BY TREATING THIS LAND AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 WHILE AO HAS TAKEN THE VALUATION OF L AND @ RS. 80 PER SQUARE METER ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIV ED FROM THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR (STAMP DUTY VALUATION) TREATING TH E SAME AS AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THAT DATE. ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRAVINBHAI J. PANDYA VIDE ITA NO. 3290/ AHD/2010 DATED 31-07- 2013 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND AGA INST THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I.T.A NO.2528/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL 8 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT LAND U NDER CONSIDERATION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON 01-04-1981. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT IT WAS CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND ONLY IN TH E YEAR 2005. THE ASSESSEES CONSISTENT CONTENTION HAS BEEN THAT LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALUED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 AN D THE VALUATION OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR CALCULATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE GROUN D THAT SINCE THE LAND WHEN SOLD WAS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AFTER CONV ERSION, IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND EVEN BEFORE THE DATE OF CONVERSION. THIS CONTENTION WAS BACKED BY ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT SUCH TREATMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD BESTOW GR EATER BENEFIT ON ASSESSEE WHICH WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPLYING COST INFLATION INDEX WHILE CALCULATING LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WE FIND THIS ARGUMENT DEVOID OF MERIT IN VIEW OF TH E FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS CASE THAT AS ON 01-04-1981 LAND WAS AGRICULTUR AL LAND AND TO APPLY COST INFLATION INDEX THE SAME CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 SIMPLY BECAUSE T HE SAME WAS CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBSEQUENTLY I N THE YEAR 2005 WHEN THE SAME WAS SOLD AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. T HEREFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY TREATED THIS LAND AS AGRIC ULTURAL LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THE VALUATION OF THE LAND @ 2.32 PER SQ. FT ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE I NSTANCES OBTAINED BY HIM FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. THE ANOTHE R CONTENTION RAISED BY LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AO SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO DVO U/S 55A OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, IN CASE HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REGISTERED VALUER REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE MATTER TO DVO IN CA SE VALUATION OF ANY PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF REGISTERED VALUER HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE. IN THIS CASE THE SITUATION IS REVERE AS IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 MORE THAN THE MARKET VALUE, AND THEREFOR E THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY U PHELD. I.T.A NO.2528/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. PRAVIN AMRUTLAL PATEL 9 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITA TION IN HOLDING THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 WHILE VALUING THE SAME FOR CALCULATING THE LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN. THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THAT O F AO IS RESTORED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 10/01/2014 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,