Smt . Sushilabai Ishwardas Bamb, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 5(1), Pune

ITA 2752/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5834 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NANDITA KANCHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TYAGI
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Search and seizure; Cost of acquisition; Tangible material; Fair market value; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB, 19, GODS GIFT, GIDNEY PARK, SALISBURY PARK, PUNE 411 037 PAN : ACRPB7786P VS. ITO, WARD-5(1), PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-4, PUNE ON 19-06-2017 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, W HICH READ AS UNDER : - 1. THE LEARNED (LD) CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2012-13, AS THE APPELLATE ORDER SUFFERS FROM A NUMBER OF FATAL AND VITAL DEFE CTS AND THE SAME IS ALSO BASED ON TOTALLY ERRONEOUS / FALSE STATEMENTS ON A NUMBER OF VITAL ASPECTS. APPELLANT BY SHRI S.K. TYAGI RESPONDENT BY SHRI NANDITA KANCHAN DATE OF HEARING 31-01-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01-02-2019 ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 2 2. THE ID CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE SECOND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX: ACT, 19 61 (THE ACT), DT.28.3.2016, COULD NOT BE ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF T HE SAME SET OF FACTS, AFTER THE ITO, WD.5(3), PUNE, HAD DROPPED THE REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INITIATED VIDE FIRST NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 OF THE ACT, DT.30.3.2015 3. THE ID CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE AO COULD NOT HAVE ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981, AT RS.400 PER SQ.MTR, AS AGAINST RS.70 0 PER SQ.MTR, DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER APPO INTED BY THE APPELLANT, AS ALSO THE GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER , APPOINTED BY THE CO-SELLER. 4. THE ID CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER, DT.30.12.2016, IS ABSO LUTELY INVALID AND BAD IN LAW, BECAUSE THE TOTAL INCOME THEREIN, HAS B EEN COMPUTED ON PROVISIONAL BASIS, THE SAME BEING SUBJECT TO THE VA LUATION REPORT OF THE DVO, WHICH WAS YET TO BE RECEIVED, 5. THE ID CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WA S NO FRESH / NEW MATERIAL IN POSSESSION OF THE AO, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE SECOND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, DT.28.3.2016, AFTER T HE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED, VIDE THE FIRST NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, DT.30.3.2015, WERE DROPPED BY THE ITO, WD.5(3), PUNE. 6. THE ID CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE IMPU GNED SECOND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, DT.28.3.2016, WAS ISSUED PURELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE A O, ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 7. THE ID CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE GROU ND OF APPEAL THAT THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN DEFIANCE OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF ARONI COMMERCIALS LTD VS DY.CIT (2014) 101 DTR 244 (BOM). 8. THE ID CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER FATAL FLAW IN THE IMPUGNED REASSE SSMENT ORDER, BECAUSE THE SAME WAS PASSED WITHOUT DISPOSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE SECOND NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148 OF THE ACT, DT.28.3.2016, VIDE HER LETTER, DT.17.12.2016. 9. ALL THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 3 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES-LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND , MODIFY OR DELETE ANY OR ALL THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS AGAINST IN ITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN ON 28-07-2012 DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.83,88,922/- INCLUSIVE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN OF RS.34,57,850/-. THIS RETURN WAS REVISED ON 22.11.2 013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.84,95,772/-. IN SUCH REVISE D RETURN, THERE WAS NO VARIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ORIGINALLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.34,57,850/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) INITIATED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS B Y MEANS OF A NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER ALSO CALLED AS THE ACT) DATED 30-03-2015. PROCEEDINGS P URSUANT TO SUCH NOTICE WERE DROPPED VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 28-03-2016 WAS ISSUED U/S .148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING INDEXED COST OF ACQUIS ITION AT RS.17,41,01,150/-, BEING, 98% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION, WAS EXORBITANTLY EXCESSIVE WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF A MUCH LOWER INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION SHOWN BY ONE SH. KUNDANMA L CHUNILAL KHIVANSARA, ANOTHER CO-OWNER OF THE SAME PROPERTY . THE ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 4 ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S BY ARGUING THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMEN T ON THE SAME REASON FOR WHICH THE EARLIER NOTICE DATED 30-03-20 15 WAS ISSUED AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED. THE AO REJEC TED SUCH CONTENTION BY NOTICING THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES AND OTHER INFIRMITIES IN SUCH EARLIER NOTICE OF RE- ASSESSMENT AND THAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR DROPPING PROCEEDIN GS OUT OF SUCH A NOTICE FOLLOWED BY A FRESH NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 28-03- 2016 RECORDING PROPER REASONS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ELABORATED THE POSITION BY INDICATING THAT TH E ASSESSEE ADOPTED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON 1.4 .1981 AT THE RATE OF RS.700 PER SQ.MT., AS AGAINST SUCH FAIR MARK ET VALUE SHOWN BY SH. KUNDANMAL KHIVANSARA AT RS.400 PER SQ.MT. THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, SOLAPUR FOR DETE RMINING THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01-04-1981. SINCE THE REPOR T OF THE DVO WAS NOT RECEIVED TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT ON 30-12-2016, THE AO ADOPTED THE FMV OF THE SAID PROPERTY AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR, BEING, THE SAME RATE AT WHICH ANOTHER TRANSFEROR OF THE SAME PROPERTY HAD DECLARED. I T WAS, HOWEVER, MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THIS ADOPTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 AS DETERMINED BY THE ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 5 DVO, TO WHOM REFERENCE WAS MADE AND THE REPORT WAS AWA ITED. THIS LED TO AN ADDITION OF RS.7,86,71,212/-. THE ASSESS EE REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BOTH ON MERITS AS WELL A S AGAINST THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS H OW, THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. A R CONTENDED THAT THE AO INITIATED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 30-03-2015 BY RECORDING THE REASONS ON 10-03-2015 TO THE EFFECT THAT IT TRANSPIRED DURIN G THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF HIGH VALUE TRANSACTIONS OF MR. KUNDANMAL CHUNILAL KHINVASARA, ANOTHER CO-SELLER OF THE SAME PROPERTY WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED, THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.17,76,63,000/- AND THERE WAS SO ME ESCAPEMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED VIDE ORDER DATED 16-03-2016. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAIN ON 28-03-2016 ON SOME SUBJECT MATTER AMOUNTED TO CHA NGE OF OPINION, WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THIS WAS STRONGLY RE FUTED BY THE LD. DR, WHO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN IRREGULAR ITIES ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 6 IN THE RECORDING OF REASONS BY THE AO ON 10-03-2015, WH ICH NECESSITATED THE DROPPING OF THE PROCEEDINGS FLOWING FROM SU CH NOTICE AND INITIATING FRESH PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S.1 48 DATED 28-03-2016. 5. IN ORDER TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE THE RIVAL CONTENTION ON THI S SCORE, IT WOULD BE APPOSITE TO NOTE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ON 10-03-2015, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS UNDER :- IN THIS CASE, INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM T HE DIT(INTEL. & CR .INV.) PUNE, VIDE LETTER DTD.22.01.2015 THAT WHILE VERIFYING THE HIGH VALUE TRANSACTION IN THE CASE OF SHRI KUNDANMAL CHI MANLAL KHINVASARA, IT WAS RECEIVED THAT SMT. SUSHILABAI IS HWARDAS BAMB, ONE OF THE CO-SELLERS HAS RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION O F RS.17,76,63,000/- DURING THE F.Y. 2011-12. THOUGH LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE DIT (INTEL.& CR. INV) PUNE, TO THIS ASSESSEE, NO INFORM ATION WAS RECEIVED BY THEM IN THIS RESPECT. THEREFORE, THE SAID INFOR MATION HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO THE JURISDICTIONAL AO. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION AND ESCAPEMENT O F CAPITAL GAIN, RE- OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE F OR A.Y.2012-13 IS NECESSARY. NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 6. PURSUANT TO SUCH REASONS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE DATED 30-03-2015, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AO DROPPED THESE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ORDER DATE D 16-03-2016, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 12 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. IT IS TWO-LINED ORDER READING : `PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U /S.147 ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 7 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, VIDE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT DATED 10-03-2015 ARE HEREBY DROPPED. IT CAN BE SEEN FRO M THE REASONS DATED 10-03-2015 THAT THE AO SIMPLY RECORDED THAT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM DIT (INTEL. & CR. INV.), PUNE, THAT WHILE VERIFYING THE HIGH VALUE TRANSACTION IN THE CASE OF KUNDANMAL CHUNIMAL KHINVASARA, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.17.76 CRORE AND ODD. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION AND ESCAPEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN, THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED. IT IS APPARENT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REASONS THAT THERE IS NO POSITIVE SATISF ACTION BY THE AO ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHAT HAS BEEN RECORDED IS A VAGUE ATTEMPT TO V ERIFY THE TRANSACTION WITHOUT THEIR BEING ANY REASON TO BELIEVE ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE AO, AFTER INITIATION OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SUCH REASONS DATED 10-03-2015, UNDERSTOOD THE GRAVITY OF THE MISTAKE COMMITTED IN THE MANNER OF RECORDING THE REASONS AND THOUGHT IT BETTER TO DROP THE PROCE EDINGS. A FINDING TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN RETURNED IN THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. THIS LED TO THE PASSING OF THE O RDER DATED 16.3.2016 DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 8 7. THEREAFTER, A FRESH NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS IS SUED ON 28-03-2016 ACCOMPANIED BY THE REASONS, A COPY OF WHIC H IS GIVEN AT PAGES 14 AND 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK, READING AS UNDER : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 22.11.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.84,95,772/-. THE RETU RN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. IN THIS CASE INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM OFFICE OF THE DIT (INTEL. & CR. INV.) PUNE, REGARDING HIGH VALUE TRANSACTION RELATED TO THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF RS.29,93,59,00 0/- (MARKET VALUE OF RS.28,22,81,175/-) IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARIN G SURVEY NO.50/1, SURVEY NO.50/2, PORTION OUT OF SURVEY NO.50/4, SU RVEY NO.50/6, SURVEY NO.50/7+8 AND SURVEY NO.50/10+11/2/2. IN AL L MEASURING ABOUT 5.33 HECTARE, 8 ACRE, I.E. 53,380 SQ. MTR AND REGISTERED WITH JT. SRO, CLASS-2, HAVELI-19, PUNE ON 06.09.2011 VIDE DO CUMENT NUMBER 8555/2011 SOLD BY THE VENDORS AS PER TABLE BELOW : SR.NO. NAME OF THE VENDOR VENDOR NO. % SHARE OF THE VENDOR TOWARDS PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT RECEIVED (RS.) 1 KUNDANMAL CHUNILAL KHINVASARA 1 22% 6,50,54,000 2 SHIRISH KUNDANMAL KHINVASARA MEENAL KUNDANMAL KHINVASARA MADHUR KUNDANMAL KHINVASARA YASH KUNDANMAL KHINVASARA 2 19% 5,66,42,000 3 SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 3 59% 17,76,63,000 TOTAL 29,93,59,000 3. SHRI KUNDANMAL CHINULAL KHINVASARA (VENDOR 1) IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13, HAS TAKEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF HIS SHARE IN THE LAND AT RS.46,40,000 /- WITH CORRESPONDING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WORKED OU T AT RS.3,64,24,000/- (55% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION) WI TH LTCG CALCULATED AT RS.2,86,30,000/- AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AT RS.6,50,54,000/-. ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 9 4. SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB (VENDOR 3), ONE T HE CO-SELLERS HAS RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.17,76,63,000/ - (59% OF THE TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.29,93,59,000/-) DURING TH E A.Y. 2012-13 AND HAS NOT FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE SCHED ULED DATE. FURTHER, ON 22.11.2013, SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB, HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME CALCULATING THE LTCG ARISES DURING THE AS SESSMENT YEAR AS BELOW : FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RS.17,76,63,000 LESS : COST OF ACQUISITION : RS.17,41,05,150/- (98% OF SALE CONSIDERATION) EXPENDITURE ON TRANSFER : RS.1,00,000 RS.17,42,05,150 --------------------- LTCG : RS.34,57,850/- -------------------- ON COMPARING THE COST OF ACQUISITION TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE LTCG OFFERED BY SMT. SUSHILABAI ISH WARBAI BAMB WITH THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS TAKEN BY SHRI KUNDANMAL CHUNILAL KHINVASARA IN THE RATIO IN WHICH THE SALE CONSIDERA TION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITI ON AS TAKEN BY SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB IS UNEXPECTEDLY VERY HIGH (ALMOST 100% HIGH) AS COMPARED TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION TAKEN BY SHRI KUNDANMAL CHINULAL KHINVASARA. HENCE, IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS THE ESCAPEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN AS OFFERED BY SMT. SUSHI LABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB BY ADOPTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION UNEXPECTED LY HIGH TO EVADE TAXES. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THE COST OF ACQUISITION. 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17,76,63,000/- FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 8. AFTER DROPPING THE EARLIER RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO INITIATED FRESH RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 28-03-2016 BY PROPERLY RECORDING THAT ONE PIECE OF LAND ADMEASURING ABOUT 53,380 SQ.MTR WAS SOLD BY PERSONS, N AMELY, ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 10 KUNDANLAL CHUNILAL KHINVASARA, BEING, VENDOR NO.1 HAVING 2 2% SHARE; SHIRISH KUNDANMAL KHINVASARA, MEENAL KUNDANMAL KHINVASARA, MADHUR KUNDANMAL KHINVASARA AND YASH KUNDA NMAL KHINVASARA, BEING, VENDOR NO.2 HAVING 19% SHARE; AND TH E ASSESSEE, BEING, VENDOR NO.3 HAVING 59% SHARE IN THE TOTA L SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.29,93,59,000/-. WHILE DISCLOSING THE A MOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND AS A CO-OWNER OF THE SAME PROPERTY, SH. KUNDANLAL CHUNILAL KHINVASARA, BEING, VE NDOR NO.1 WITH 22% SHARE, ADOPTED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.46,40 ,000/- BY CONSIDERING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1. 4.1981 AT THE RATE OF RS.400 PER SQ.MTR, AND THE CORRESPONDING INDE XED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.3.64 CRORE, THEREBY DETERMINING LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.2.86 CRORE. AS AGAINST THAT, THE ASSESSE E, ANOTHER CO-SELLER OF THE SAME PROPERTY WITH 59% SHARE DECLARED LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.34.57 LAKHS BY CONSIDERING INDEXED COST O F ACQUISITION AT RS.17.41 AS AGAINST THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDER ATION AT RS.17.76 CRORE. COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.17.41 CRORE WA S WORKED OUT BY TAKING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAME PROPERTY AT RS. 700 PER SQ.MT. THIS LED TO THE FORMATION OF REASONS TO BELIEVE BY THE AO THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 11 ASSESSEE, NECESSITATING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 28.3.2016. 9. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT SUCH A SECOND INITIATIO N OF REASSESSMENT, LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE INSTANT ORDER, IS INVALID, CAN BE BETTER APPRECIATED IN TWO STEPS, VIZ., ONE, WHETHER A NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT CAN BE ISSUED MORE THAN ONCE AND TWO, WHETHER A SECOND NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT CAN BE ISSUED ON THE SAME SU BJECT MATTER. 10. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE NU MBER OF TIMES AN AO CAN VENTURE TO MAKE REASSESSMENTS, OF COUR SE, SUBJECT TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS. SO LONG AS THE SUCCESSIVE ASSES SMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ARE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME , THERE CAN BE NO IMPEDIMENT ON THE POWERS OF THE AO TO ISS UE NOTICE AND FRAME REASSESSMENTS ONE AFTER ANOTHER. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RIGHTLY DISPUTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND THE SECOND ASPECT, THA T IS, WHETHER A SECOND NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT CAN BE ISSUED ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER. ORDINARILY, WHEN A NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT IS IS SUED AND THE ISSUE IS DECIDED, THE AO CANNOT ONCE AGAIN INITIATE ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 12 REASSESSMENT ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER. THE REASON IS OB VIOUS THAT ONCE HE HAS DECIDED A PARTICULAR ASPECT IN THE FIRST ROU ND OF REASSESSMENT AND HE AGAIN TAKES UP THE SAME AFTER SOME TI ME, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING INTO EXISTENCE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST REASSESSMENT LEADING THE AO TO FORM A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT WOULD AM OUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO IT. IF HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT RENDERED ANY DECISION ON THAT ASPECT ON WHICH THE REASSESSMENT WAS INITIATED , FOR SOME TECHNICAL REASONS AND THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CLOSED AT TH E THRESHOLD, THERE CAN BE NO EMBARGO ON THE POWERS OF THE AO TO INITIATE THE REASSESSMENT ONCE AGAIN ON SUCH SUBJECT MATTER AFTE R MAKING GOOD THE TECHNICAL REASONS WHICH HINDERED HIM TO PR OCEED IN THE FIRST ROUND OF REASSESSMENT. IN ORDER TO BRING A SU BJECT MATTER WITHIN THE AMBIT OF `CHANGE OF OPINION, IT IS OF FOREMOST IMPORTANCE THAT AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, THERE SHOULD BE SOME FORMATION OF OPINION. IF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST ROUND HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN UP AT ALL FOR CONSIDERATION AN D DECISION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THE SECOND REASSESSMENT NOTICE O N THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER CONSTITUTES CHANGE OF OPINION, SO AS TO DEBAR THE AO FROM ESPOUSING THE REASSESSMENT. ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 13 12. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE EXTANT CASE FALLS IN THE EXCEPTION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ALBEIT, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASONS FOR ISSUING FIRST NOTICE U/S.148 ON 30-03-2015 AND THE SECOND NOTICE DATED 28-03-2016 IS SAM E, BUT THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD TO DROP THE FIRST SET OF REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION, PROPERLY CLOTHED THE AO WITH THE POWER TO ISSUE SECOND NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER, THIS TIME DE HORS , ANY TECHNICAL GLITCH. IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE FIRST REASSESSMENT NOTICE WERE VAGUE AND DID NOT ELAB ORATE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY SIMPLY REFERRED TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTI ON, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF RE-ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR MA KING ROVING ENQUIRIES OR ATTEMPTING TO FIND OUT IF THERE IS AN ESCA PEMENT OF INCOME. IN ORDER TO GET JURISDICTION U/S.147, IT IS SINE QUA NON THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SOME INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY AT A HIGHER PEDESTAL THAN AN ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 14 13. REVERTING TO THE FACTS, WE FIND THAT ONCE THE AO REALIZ ED HIS MISTAKE IN RECORDING THE REASONS, HE SWUNG INTO ACTION AND DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ADJUDICATING ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE. WITHIN A SPAN OF 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH DROPPING O F THE PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED A FRESH NOTICE U/S.148 ON 28-0 3-2016, THIS TIME, RECORDING THE REASONS ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INC OME IN A PROPER MANNER. THE SITUATION WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE IF THE AO HAD DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS BY RECORDING IN THE ORDER THAT HE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED HIM FROM ISSUING A NOTHER NOTICE U/S.148 ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER. SINCE THE FIRST NOTICE DATED 30-03-2015 DID NOT ELABORATELY RECORD REASONS TO BELIE VE ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DROP PING SUCH PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS AND INITIATING FRE SH PROCEEDINGS, CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. AS THE SECOND NOTICE U /S 148 DATED 28.3.2016 WAS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME AND THE EVEN TUAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 DATED 30.12.2016 WAS ALSO NOT BARRED BY TIME, WE ARE AFRAID TH AT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR URGING US TO QUASH THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT, CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED. ERGO, WE ACCORD OUR ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 15 IMPRIMATUR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 28.3.2016 U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 14. THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CORNERSTONE PROPER INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (2018) 193 TTJ 58 (BANG.) . THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE ALMOST SIMILAR TO THOSE INSTANTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THAT CASE ALS O THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST NOTICE U/S.14 8 WERE DROPPED AS THE REASONS WERE NOT PROPERLY RECORDED. SEC OND RE- ASSESSMENT NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND THEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN THE SAME WAY, AS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE US. REJECTING SUCH CONTENTION, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECOND NOTICE WERE VALID BECAUSE THE PROCEED INGS INITIATED BY ISSUE OF THE EARLIER NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT DATED 18- 04-2012 WAS ARRIVED AS THE REASONS HAD NOT BEEN PROPER LY RECORDED. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, THE BANGALORE B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN SUKHLAL ICE AND STORAGE COMPANY VS. ITO AND ANOTHER (1993) 199 ITR 129 (ALL). THE RELIANCE OF LD. DR ON ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN KOHINOOR ENTERPRISES VS. ITO AND OTHERS (1997) 226 ITR 86 (MP) ALSO ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 16 FORTIFIES THE VIEW CANVASSED BY US. IN THAT CASE ALSO, FIRS T NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE DEPARTMENT HA D TO DROP PROCEEDINGS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SEC OND NOTICE ISSUED WOULD NOT BE QUASHED AS THE SAME WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO. 15. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE AO SHOULD SUFFER FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM AT THE TIME OF RECORDING REASONS IN THE YEAR 2015. TO BUTTRESS SUCH A CONTENTION, THE LD. AR RELIED ON CERTAIN DECISIONS LAYING DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT THE AO CANNOT TAKE BENEFIT OF HIS OWN ERRORS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THE PROPOSITION PROPOUNDED BY THE LD. AR AND THOSE DECISIONS A RE NOT GERMANE IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS NOT THAT THE AO SOUGHT TO TAKE CERTAIN ADVANTAGE OUT OF THE ERRORS COMMITTED BY HIM IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 ON 30-03-2015. RELIANCE ON SUCH DECISIONS WOULD HAVE ASSUMED SIGNIFICANCE IF THE AO HAD STUCK TO SUCH REASONS AND TRIED TO VALIDATE HIS ACTIO N ON THE STRENGTH OF ACTUAL FACTS URGING THAT EVEN IF THE REASONS WERE NOT PROPERLY RECORDED, BUT IN SUBSTANCE HIS ACTION WAS JUSTIFIED. IN THAT SITUATION, IT COULD HAVE BEEN CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE AO CANNOT TAKE BENEFIT OF HIS OWN ERRORS COMMITTED WHILE RECORDING REASONS AT THE TIME OF ISSUING NOTICE DATED 30-03- 2015. ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 17 AU CONTRAIRE, HERE IS A CASE, IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 30-03-2015 WERE DROPPED WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS. FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, SUCH PROCEEDINGS CEASE D TO EXIST ON THEIR DROPPING. WHILE EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF TH E SECOND NOTICE, WE CANNOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE FIRST VALIDLY DROPPED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ENTERING INTO THE MERITS OF THE C ASE. WHAT WE NEED TO EXAMINE AND EVALUATE IS TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF TH E INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ON 28-03-2016. SINCE THE A SSESSMENT ORDER IS BASED ON THE REASONS AS RECORDED PURSUANT TO NOTICE DATED 28-03-2016, IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT THE AO TRIED TO TA KE SOME BENEFIT OUT OF HIS OWN MISTAKES. AS THE NOTICE DATED 28-03-2016 WAS WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AND THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS U/S.148 HAD BEEN VALIDLY DROPPED, WE HOLD THAT THERE CAN BE NO CASE TO ARGUE THAT THE AO INITIATED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN A WRONG MANNER BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN MISTAKES. THIS CONTENTION IS, THEREFORE, REPELLED. 16. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. AR IS THAT THE AO PASS ED A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THIS WAS SO STATED ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO RECORDED IN PARA NO.7 OF HIS ORDER THAT HE WAS ADOPTING FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01 -04- ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 18 1981 @ RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR AS AGAINST THE FMV TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.700/- PER SQ.MTR AND THE SAME WAS SUBJE CT TO THE FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNTED TO PASSING OF A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBJECT TO A FINAL ORDER TO BE PASSED, W HICH WAS BAD IN LAW. 17. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENT TENDERED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE AO HAS REC ORDED IN HIS ORDER THAT ADOPTION OF FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01-04-198 1 @ RS.400/- PER SQ. MTR SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FMV AS ON 01-0 4-1981 TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DVO, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT GOT CONCLUDED WITH THE ADOPTION OF FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01-04-1981 @ RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR AND THE INCOME WAS DETERMINED ACCORDINGLY. NOT ONLY THAT, THE AO ALSO ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE U/S.156. THE ISSUANCE OF DEMAND NOTICE CO UPLED WITH THE PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AMPLY PROVES THAT IT WA S A FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ALL RESPECTS. ON A PERTINENT QUERY , THE LD. AR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT REVISE THIS ASSESSMENT ORD ER BY ANY OTHER ORDER AND FURTHER THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT ANY ADVERSE REPORT OF THE DVO WAS RECEIVED OR CONSIDERED. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, BASED ON THE ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 19 COST OF ACQUISITION, BEING, FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 @ RS.400 /- PRE SQ.MTR, DERIVED FROM THE SAME COST OF ACQUISITION AS DECLAR ED BY ANOTHER CO-SELLER OF THE SAME PROPERTY, CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED AS BASED ON ANY REPORT OF THE DVO ETC. REFERENCE MADE TO DVO BECAME ACADEMIC BECAUSE THE AO NEVER TOOK COGNIZANCE O F ANY REPORT OF THE DVO, IF AT ALL RECEIVED AT ANY STAGE, AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, IT IS OVERT THAT TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS FINAL IN ALL RESPECTS A ND THE SAME CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS PROVISIONAL SO AS TO CLAIM ITS QUASHING ON THIS VERY SCORE. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THIS CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR. 18. NOW, WE TURN TO THE ADOPTION OF FMV AT RS.400/- PER SQ . MTR BEING FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 OF THE PROPERTY, ON MERITS. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED COST OF ACQUISITION BY ADO PTING RATE OF RS.700/- PER SQ. MTR, BEING, THE FMV AS ON 01-0 4-1981. THIS WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF A REPORT OF A REGISTERED V ALUER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THREE SETS OF CO-SELLERS OF THE PROP ERTY TRANSFERRED AT THE SAME TIME. THE OTHER CO-SELLERS ALSO G OT THE PROPERTY VALUED AS ON 01-04-1981 FROM THE SAME REGISTERE D VALUER, WHO DETERMINED THE FMV ON THAT DATE AT RS.700/- PER SQ.MTR. ASSESSMENT OF MR. KUNDANLAL CHUNILAL KHINVASARA WA S ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 20 COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. NOTWITHSTANDING THE REPORT O F THE REGISTERED VALUER DETERMINING THE F.M.V. AS ON 1.4.1981 AT R S.700 PER SQ.MTR, SH, KUNDANLAL CHUNILAL KHINVASARA COMPUTED CAPITA L GAIN BY TAKING THE VALUE OF RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR AS PER R EADY RECKONER VALUE, DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. THE RELEVANT CIRCULAR/READY RECKONER RELIED COPY RELIED BY SHRI KUNDANLAL CHUNILAL KHINVASARA ADOPTING THE FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR, WAS ALSO SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO WROTE TO THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE CORR ECT VALUATION OF PROPERTY AS ON 01-04-1981. THEY ALSO SENT CIR CULAR DATED 03-10-1999 ACCOMPANIED BY THE READY RECKONER SHO WING THE AREA-WISE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN PUNE CITY. AS PER THE CIRCULAR AND THE READY RECKONER, THE VALUATION OF THE PROP ERTY IN QUESTION AS ON 01-04-1981 WAS RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR. N OW WE NEED TO DECIDE THAT WHICH OUT OF TWO VALUES, NAMELY, RS. 400 OR RS.700 PER SQ.MTR. IS ACCURATE. POR UNA PARTE , WE HAVE THE ASSESSMENT OF CO-SELLER OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED, WHO ADOPTED FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR COUPLED WITH THE READY RECKONER RATE DETERMINED BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES AND THE VALU E DETERMINED BY THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF STATE ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 21 GOVERNMENT AT RS.400/- PER SQ. MTR; AND POR OTRA PARTE WE HAVE A REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING VALUE @ RS.700/- PER SQ.MTR. WHEN WE PERUSE THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER, COPY PLACED AT PAGE 86 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOO K, IT TRANSPIRES THAT HE HAS MENTIONED AGAINST COL.38 THAT INSTANCES OF SALE OF EXACTLY SIMILAR COMPARABLE PROPERTIES FOR THE YEAR 1 981 ARE NOT AVAILABLE. IN COL. 39 AND 40, THE REGISTERED VALUER H AS GIVEN RATE OF RS.700/- PER SQ.MTR ON THE BASIS OF SPOT ENQUIR IES MADE IN LOCALITY CONCERNED, CONSIDERATION OF PARAMETERS OF LOCATION, AVAILABILITY OF BASIC CIVIC AMENITIES.. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH E REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER IS BASED ON NO EVIDENCE AS HE HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE AS ON 01-04-1981. WHEN THE SOLE INSTANT REPORT OF THE REGISTERE D VALUER IS PITTED AGAINST THE READY RECKONER RATE, THE VALUE ADOPTED B Y ANOTHER CO-SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AT THE SAME TIME AND THE VALUE GIVEN BY THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THERE CAN BE NO PR IZE FOR GUESSING THAT THE VALUE OF RS.400 PER SQ.MTR. IS MORE AUTH ENTIC AND RELIABLE. WE THUS HOLD THAT THE ADOPTION OF RATE OF RS.400/-P ER SQ.MTR BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS COST OF ACQUISITION, BEING, F MV AS ON 01-04-1981, IS PROPER. ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 22 19. ANOTHER ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE AO C OULD NOT HAVE VALIDLY MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01-04-198 1 HAS PALED INTO INSIGNIFICANCE AS THE AO HAS NOT GONE WITH THE REP ORT OF DVO DETERMINING COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AS ON 01-04 - 1981. RATHER HE TOOK THE VALUE DECLARED BY ANOTHER CO-SE LLER OF THE SAME PROPERTY ITSELF, BASED ON THE READY RECKONER RATE. THESE SUBMISSIONS ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 20. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING COST OF ACQUISITION, BEING, FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 A T RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR. 21. NO OTHER GROUND SURVIVES IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VI CE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 01 ST FEBRUARY, 2019 ITA NO.2752/PUN/2017 SMT. SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB 23 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-11, PUNE 4. 5. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, PUNE , , / DR B, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR P RIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 31-01-2019 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 01-02-2019 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *