Late Sushilabai Sayajirao Raut, Pune V. ACIT, Circle 2(2), Pune

ITA 278/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2786 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Search and seizure; Document seized; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . . , , ! ' BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.273 & 274/PN/2013 !$ $ / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 2005-06 1. SHRI JAYAVARDHAN SAJAYIRAO RAUT, 833, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411030 PAN NO.AGHPR5653D . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.275/PN/2013 !$ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 2. LATE RAUT MISS. PUSHPA SAYAJIRAO, 833, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411030 PAN NO.AGHPR9742F . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.276 & 277/PN/2013 !$ $ / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 2005-06 3. SHRI TAPOVARDHAN SAJAYIRAO RAUT, 833, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411030 PAN NO.AGHPR5650A . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT 2 . / ITA NO.278/PN/2013 !$ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 4. LATE SUSHILABAI SAYAJIRAO RAUT, 833, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411030 PAN NO.AGMPR6320E . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.279/PN/2013 !$ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 5. SMT. HEMLATA SAYAJIRAO RAUT, 833, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411030 PAN NO.AGHPR5651B . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.280 & 281/PN/2013 !$ $ / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 2005-06 6. SHRI NARENDRA SAJAYIRAO RAUT, 833, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411030 PAN NO.AGHPR5652C . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.1501/PN/2013 !$ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 7. SHRI SATYARAJ SAYAJIRAO RAUT, F.NO.41, SATYALOK PARK, HADAPSAR, PUNE 411 028 PAN NO.AGMPR6280K . / APPELLANT 3 V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL PATHAK & SHRI MANDAR KHARPUDIKAR FOR ASSESSEES AT SL.NO.1 TO 6 SHRI K. SRINIVASAN FOR ASSESSEE AT SL.NO.7 / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. RASTOGI, CIT / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 28-11-2012 THE CIT(A) C ENTRAL, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 20001-02 & 2005-06 AS ME NTIONED AGAINST EACH APPEAL. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THE SE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER . ITA NO.276/PN/2013 (SHRI TAPOVARDHAN SAYAJIRAO RAUT (A.Y. 2001-02) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY ON 01 -09-2004 WHICH FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 30-09-2004. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH OF RS.5,50,000/- AND FDR OF RS.74,06,636/- WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE A TO THE PANCHANAMA DATED 05- 09-2004. SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH ACTION WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE RE SIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI PRIVTHVIRAJ S. RAUT, SHRI SATHYARAJ S. RA UT AND SHRI SANDEEP DEO OF PUNE. / DATE OF HEARING : 12.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:29.01.2016 4 3. A STATEMENT U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 02-09-2004 AND 20-10-2004. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.153A(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING INCOME O F RS.1,42,580/- ON 11-03-2005 WHICH IS THE SAME FIGURE AS PE R THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S.139(1). THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE DERIVED INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. HE W AS THE PARTNER IN THE FIRM NAMELY M/S. RAUT DEVELOPERS, M/S. SUSH ILA NIKETAN, M/S. PALM VILLAGE AND M/S. RAUT HORTICULTURE. HOWE VER, THE INCOME OF RS.1,42,580/- SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS WELL A S IN THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A FROM CAPITAL GAINS. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO EXAMINED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD HIS TDR TO M/S. KUMAR AND COMPANY. THE AO NOTED THAT TH E PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (IN SHORT PMC) HAD MOOTED A PLAN AC CORDING TO WHICH IT ACQUIRED CERTAIN LANDS FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT PLANS . IN LIEU OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND, IT GIVES CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT R IGHT TO THE PERSON WHOSE LAND IS ACQUIRED. IF AN OWNER HANDS OVER T HE POSSESSION OF THE RESERVED LAND TO THE PMC FREE OF COST AND WITHOUT ANY ENCUMBRANCE, A DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATE (DRC) WILL BE GRANTED TO HIM TO ENTITLE HIM TO CONSTRUCT BUILT UP AREA EQUIVALENT TO THE PERMISSIBLE FSI OF THE LAND HANDED OVER BY HIM ON ON E OR MORE PLOTS IN THE ZONE SPECIFIED. THESE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CAN BE TRANSFERRED BY THE HOLDER TO A THIRD PARTY. THE TRANSA CTION OF TRANSFERRING TDR IS DONE ON THE BASIS OF NOTARIZED POWER OF ATTORNEY. BY GRANTING POWER OF ATTORNEY TO A PERSON, THE LAND OW NER HANDS OVER THE POWER FOR TRANSACTING IN TDR PERTAINING TO THE SAID P LOT OF LAND TO THE BUILDER. WHEN HE GETS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HE VIR TUALLY BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE TDR FOR THAT PLOT OF LAND. THE TDR FOR O NE PLOT OF LAND MAY CHANGE MANY HANDS. 5 5. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HOLDING TH E FOLLOWING DRC IN HIS HANDS ALONG WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS : DRC NO. LOCATION OF THE LAND AREA IN SQ.MT. ZONE DATE OF ISSUE OF DRC 2195 TO 2198 PARVATI S.NO.121A/122A/1F.NO.537 3,945 B 3.01.00 2340 TO 2399 PARVATI S.NO.121A/122A/1F.NO.537 1,08,686,81 B 3.03.00 TOTAL AREA 1,12,631.81 6. HE NOTED THAT ALONG WITH THE ASESSEE 9 OTHER MEMBER S ARE THERE IN HIS FAMILY NAMELY SHRI JAYWARDHAN S. RAUT, SHRI NARENDRA S. RAUT, SHRI SATYARAJ S. RAUT, SHRI PRITHVIRAJ S. RAUT, SMT. VI JAYA SHANTARAM DOKE, SMT. ASHALATA M. PAITHANKAR, SMT. PUSHPLATA S. RAUT AND SMT. HEMLATA S. RAUT. 7. THE AO NOTED THAT THE RAUT FAMILY HAVE INHERITED A LOT OF ANCESTRAL LAND PROPERTY. A MAJOR PORTION OF THE FAMILYS LAND HAD REMAINED UNDER GOVERNMENT RESERVATION FOR VARIOUS SOCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES EVERSINCE 1965. IN 1992 THE RAU T FAMILY EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT TO SALE WITH KUMAR AND COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THIS AGREEMENT THE LAND WOULD BE SOLD TO KUMAR AND C OMPANY FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.50 CRORES. INITIAL PAYMENT BY KUMAR AN D COMPANY WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.25 LAKHS. CERTAIN AMOUNT S WERE PAID TO THE RAUT FAMILY IN DUE COURSE OF TIME AS WELL. AFTE R THE CONCEPT OF TDR CAME UP INSTEAD OF EXECUTING THE SALE DE ED, SHRI VIMALKUMAR KESARIMAL JAIN (V.K. JAIN IN SHORT) ACQUIRED THE IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM THE RAUT FAMILY IN MARC H 2001 FOR DEALING IN TDR ALLOTTED ON THE LAND BELONGING TO THEM. IT W AS STATED BY BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION THAT THE PAYME NTS WERE TO BE MADE AS AND WHEN THE TDR WAS SOLD. 6 8. THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH ACTION LOOSE PAP ERS NO.73 OF THE LOOSE PAPER BUNDLE NO.12 WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESID ENCE OF SHRI SANDEEP DEO WHO WAS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ASSESS EE AND M/S. KUMAR AND COMPANY. THIS PAGE IS WRITTEN ON BOTH THE SID ES. THE FRONT PORTION OF THIS PAGE HAS CALCULATIONS RELATED TO CO NVERSION OF BALANCE AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE R AUT FAMILY INTO DRC AREAS. FOR ALL THESE CALCULATIONS FIRST OF ALL THE T OTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE RAUT FAMILY HAS BE EN TAKEN AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO BY 200 (I.E. THE RATE O F DRC/TDR) AND THE AREA EQUIVALENT TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT PAYABLE H AS BEEN ARRIVED AT IN SQ.FT. THEREAFTER THIS AREA IN SQ.FT. HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO AREA IN SQ.MTRS BY DIVIDING IT BY 10.764. 9. AFTER ANALYZING THE VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN THE NA ME OF DIFFERENT PERSONS THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FINANCIAL EVENTS AND TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THESE PAGES ARE VERY MUCH TRUE AND REAL AND THE SAME ARE NOT MERE ASSUMPTIONS. HE FURT HER NOTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS CONTAIN, THE RATE AT WHICH THE RAUT FAMILY HAS TRANSFERRED THE LAND TO KUMAR AND COMPANY. THE RATES AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE AS UNDER : SHRI SUSHILABAI S. RAUT RS.100 PER SQ.FT. SHRI T.S. RAUT RS.100 PER SQ.FT. SHRI JAYWARDHAN S. RAUT RS.100 PER SQ.FT. SHRI NARENDRA S. RAUT RS.100 PER SQ.FT. SHRI SATYARAJ S. RAUT RS.140 PER SQ.FT. SHRI PRITHVIRAJ S. RAUT RS.141 PER SQ.FT. MISS PUSHPLATA S. RAUT RS.7,05,000 LUMP SUM MISS HEMLATA S. RAUT RS.7,05,000 LUMP SUM SMT. ASHALATA PAITHANKAR RS.7,05,000 LUMP SUM SMT. VIAYA DOKE RS.7,05,000 LUMP SUM 7 10. HE NOTED THAT AS PER PAGE NO.41 OF LOOSE PAPER BUND LE NO.12 AFTER RECEIVING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.80 CRORES, THERE WAS AN ENHANCEMENT IN THE VALUE OF LAND BY 25% ON THE BALANCE A MOUNT PAYABLE. FROM THE CALCULATION OF THIS PAGE, HE OBSERVED TH AT THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED BY SHRI T.S. RAUT AND OTHERS TILL 9 TH MARCH 2000 IS RS.1,80,62,000/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE IS RS.7,39,39,264/-. HE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS AN ENHANCEME NT OF RATE BY ANOTHER 25% ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,39,39,264/-. THUS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED BY T.S. RAUT AND OTHERS IS RS.9,24,40,080/-. TO CALCULATE THE RATE AT WHICH THE LAND WA S TRANSFERRED TO KUMAR AND COMPANY THE AO ADDED THE AM OUNT OF RS.1,80,62,000/- WHICH WAS ALREADY RECEIVED TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.9,24,40,040/-. THUS, THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF TH E LAND BELONGING TO T.S. RAUT AND OTHERS WORKED OUT TO RS.11,05, 02,080/-. AFTER DIVIDING THIS AMOUNT BY THE AREA OF LAND OF 913362.64 SQ.FT. THE RATE AT WHICH THE LAND WAS SOLD COMES TO RS.120/- PER SQ.FT. HOWEV ER, HE NOTED FROM PAGE NO.41 OF THE LOOSE PAPER BUNDLE NO.12 THAT THE RATES AT WHICH THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED BY T.S. RAUT A ND OTHERS IS AS UNDER : SHRI SUSHILABAI S. RAUT RS.120 PER SQ.FT. SHRI T.S. RAUT RS.120 PER SQ.FT. SHRI JAYWARDHAN S. RAUT RS.120 PER SQ.FT. SHRI NARENDRA S. RAUT RS.120 PER SQ.FT. SHRI SATYARAJ S. RAUT RS.140 PER SQ.FT. SHRI PRITHVIRAJ S. RAUT RS.141 PER SQ.FT. MISS PUSHPLATA S. RAUT RS.7,05,000 LUMP SUM MISS HEMLATA S. RAUT RS.7,05,000 LUMP SUM SMT. ASHALATA PAITHANKAR RS.7,05,000 LUMP SUM SMT. VIAYA DOKE RS.7,05,000 LUMP SUM 11. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NOTINGS ON THOSE SEIZED MATERIAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF CALCULATIONS OF SEIZED MATERIALS SHOULD BE MADE SINCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY MONEY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE AND 8 HIS FAMILY MEMBERS RECEIVED MONEY AT THE RATE OF RS.80/- PER SQ.FT. AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 02-10-2002. IT WAS ARGUED T HAT DURING THE SEARCH ACTION NO DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS LIKE JEWELLERY, C ASH ETC. WERE FOUND WHICH SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION THAT NO UNACCOUNTE D CASH WAS RECEIVED. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. 12. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ANALYSED THE INVESTMENTS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS, THE STATEMENTS RECO RDED OF DIFFERENT PERSONS AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) O N 10-09- 2004 OF SHRI SATYARAJ S. RAUT AND OBSERVED THAT IN THE BOOKS OF SHRI SATYARAJ S. RAUT THE RATE OF SALE OF LAND WAS RS.140/- SQ .FT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED B ETWEEN RAUT FAMILY AND M/S. KUMAR AND COMPANY BY WHICH THE RATE OF R S.80/- PER SQ.FT. WAS FIXED. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE SALE C ONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS NO BASIS AT ALL. HE NOT ED THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THERE IS ONE UNSIGNED AGREEMENT DA TED 30-06- 2002 AT SL.NO.61 TO 63 OF BUNDLE NO.1 WHICH IS UNSIGNED AND IS RELATED TO TDR TRANSACTION BETWEEN RAUT FAMILY AND M/S. KUMAR AND COMPANY. THE RATE HAS BEEN FIXED AT RS.80/-PER SER SQ .FT. FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES. HE, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN REALITY WAS DIFFERENT AND THE VALUE OF TRAN SACTIONS SHOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT WAS DIFFERENT. HE, THEREFORE, REJ ECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE ONLY RECEIVED SALE C ONSIDERATION AT THE RATE OF RS.80/- PER SQ.FT. AND NOT MORE THAN THAT. 13. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMIL Y MEMBERS HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH AND KIND ALSO. THE ASSESSEE RECEIV ED BUNGALOWS ALONG WITH SOME CASH AT DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. OTH ER PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE CREDITED INTO BANK ACCOUNT WAS USED FOR 9 FIXED DEPOSITS. THE BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SH RI PRITHVIRAJ S. RAUT AND SHRI SATYARAJ S. RAUT ALSO RECEIVED SOME AMOU NT BY WAY OF CASH AND IN KIND. THIS FACT CONFIRMS THE ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS RECEIVED MONEY OTHER THAN THE CH EQUE ALSO. IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES LIKE ORIGINAL COPY OF SALE DEED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION TH AT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS USELESS AND HIS CLAIM CAN BE CONSIDERED AS BOGUS. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE THE AO ADOPTED THE RATE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.120/ - PER SQ.FT. SINCE THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LAND IS 2,24,565.66 SQ.FT. HE DETERMINED THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF LAND TO K UMAR AND COMPANY BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,69,47,879/-. 14. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE INDE XED COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 FOR HIS SHARE OF LAND A T RS.1,83,71,500/- WHICH IS BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT PRE PARED BY A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER NAMELY SHRI NIMBAL, WHO HAS VALUED THE COST OF THIS LAND AT RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01-04-1981. HE NO TED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION, WHICH IS AT PARVATI, PUNE WAS A DESERTED AND AN ISOLATED PROPERTY IN 1981. DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH OPERATION AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI PRITHVIRAJ S. RAUT 2 SETS OF VALUATION REPORTS PREPARED BY THE SAME VALUER FOR THE SAME PIECE OF LAND WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. FROM THE SEIZED VALUATION REPORTS IT WA S NOTED THAT THE SAME LAND WAS VALUED AT RS.45 LAKHS IN ONE VALUATION R EPORT AND RS.35 LAKHS IN THE OTHER. THE VALUER HAS ALSO QUOTED SOME ACTUAL SALE INSTANCES OF PROPERTIES IN THE SAME AREA AROUND 1981 AC CORDING TO WHICH THE LAND IN SAME AREA WAS SOLD AT RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. IN 1984. 15. THE AO SUMMONED SHRI S.R. NIMBAL, THE APPROVED VALUER A ND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S.131 ON 15-09-2004. BOT H THE REPORTS WERE PUT BEFORE HIM AND HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY AND IN WHAT 10 SITUATION THE TWO DIFFERENT VALUATION REPORTS WERE MADE FO R THE SAME LAND. IT WAS REPLIED BY HIM THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION RESULTED BECAUSE IN THE LATER REPORT HE HAD CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A WATER TANK ON THAT LAND WHICH WAS OVERLOOKED BY HIM IN THE FIRST REPORT. WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THAT IN BOTH OF H IS REPORTS HE HAD MENTIONED THAT HE HAD PERSONALLY VISITED THE SITE, TH EN HOW HE COULD OVERLOOK THE PRESENCE OF A WATER TANK ON THE LAND , HE STATED THAT A MISTAKE IN VALUATION OF LAND HAD OCCURRED. HE WAS FU RTHER ASKED TO EXPLAIN THAT WHEN HE HIMSELF HAD QUOTED THE ACT UAL SALE OF LAND IN THAT AREA IN 1984 AT RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. THEN HOW HE HAS VALUED THE LAND AT RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. IN 1981. HE REPLIED THAT T HIS CALCULATION WAS BASED ON CERTAIN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WERE CERT AIN HIDDEN COSTS AT 40% OF THE ACTUAL VALUE OF LAND. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN BASE OR FACTS ON WHICH A HIKE OF 40% BE MADE IN THE VALUE OF LAND THERE WAS NO CLEAR EXPLANATION BY THE VALUER AS PER THE AO. HE, TH EREFORE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN THERE IS AN EVIDENCE THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN THAT AREA WHICH WAS NOT UNDER RESERVATION WAS R S.9/- PER SQ.FT. IN 1984, THEREFORE, THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN THE SAM E AREA WHICH WAS UNDER RESERVATION COULD NOT BE ANYTHING MORE THAN RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. IN 1981. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER PAGE 30 OF THE LOOSE PAPER BUNDLE NO.9 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SANDEEP DEO THAT PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAS GIVEN AWARD OF RS.98,180/- IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AT PARVATI BELONGING TO SHRI L.M. RAUT. TH E YEAR OF AWARD IS 1977 AND THE AREA ACQUIRED FOR PMC WATER TANK IS 6567.20 SQ.MT. THE RATE ON WHICH THIS AWARD WAS GIVEN WORKS OUT TO ABOUT RS.1.30 PER SQ.FT. HE NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE AWARD HAS BEEN GIVEN IS BASED ON THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE IN 1977 . VARIOUS SALE INSTANCES OF LAND AROUND THIS PERIOD HAS BEEN QUOTED BY THE PMC. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE RATE OF THE LAND BELONGING TO 11 THE RAUT FAMILY IN 1981 SHOULD BE SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THE VALUE OF RS.1.30 PER SQ.FT. AND NOT AT RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT WHOSE AUT HENTICITY IS IN DOUBT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE MSEB HAS ACQUIRED TH E ASSESSEES LAND AT PARVATI SOMETIMES AROUND 1981 AS PER WHICH AN A WARD OF RS.48 LAKHS WAS GRANTED BY MSEB TO RAUT FAMILY. MSEB HA S WORKED OUT AT RS.40/- PER SQ.MTR, I.E. RS.4/- PER SQ.FT. THE AREA O F LAND ACQUIRED WAS 57016 SQ.MTR OR 613720.22 SQ.FT. IT WAS FURT HER CERTIFIED BY MSEB THAT THE COMPENSATION HAS BEEN AWARDED AS PER TH E RATES FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. THE AO, THERE FORE, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING HIM TO JUSTIFY THE COST OF LAND AS ON 01-04-1981. 16. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH MSEB HAD GIVEN COMP ENSATION AT THE RATE OF RS.4/- PER SQ.FT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AC CEPTED THE COMPENSATION BEING LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE AND THEY HAVE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ABS ENCE OF ANY COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. REJECTING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO DETERMINED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.8/- PER SQ.FT. AS A GAINST RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, HE DET ERMINED THE COST OF ACQUISITION FOR HIS SHARE OF LAND AT RS.72,93,891/-.AFT ER DEDUCTING THE SAME FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,69,4 7,879/- THE AO DETERMINED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE AT RS.1,96,55,678/-. 17. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH T HE AO HAD ADMITTED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DO NOT CONTAIN ANY HANDWRITTEN OR SIGNATURE OF ANY MEMBER OF EITHER THE RAUT FAMILY OR T HE KUMAR COMPANY, YET THE AO PRESUMED THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE AND 12 BASED HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE SAME. IT WAS ARGUE D THAT THE AO HAD CHOSEN TO RELY ON THE SAME AS AUTHENTIC WITHOUT E VEN QUESTIONING THE PERSON WHO HAS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN THE SAME NAMEL Y SHRI DEO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI DEO IN HIS STATEMENT U/S.132(4) ST ATED THAT ALL SUCH CALCULATIONS ARE ESTIMATES AND NOT RELEVANT TO AC TUAL. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE VARIOUS NOTES PREPARED BY SHRI DEO SHOWS THAT THE RATES RANGING FROM RS.80/- PER SQ.FT. TO R S.120/- PER SQ.FT. YET THE AO CHOSE TO HELD THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD AT THE RATE OF RS.120/- PER SQ.FT. 18. THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SEIZED D OCUMENTS ARE JUST ARITHMETICAL NOTINGS MADE BY SHRI DEO. THE AO WITHOU T MAKING A SINGLE ENQUIRY FROM SHRI DEO WITH REGARD TO THE NOTINGS MADE BY HIM EITHER IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI DEO H IMSELF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RAUT FAMILY HAS ADOPTED THE SALE RATE AT THE RATE OF RS.120/- PER SQ.FT. THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED B Y SHRI DEO AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO SH OW THAT SHRI DEO HAD NO PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION NOR WAS HE AN ACCOUNTANT OF M/S. KUMAR & COMPANY OR OF THE RAUT FA MILY. THE ENTIRE RECORDING AND VARIOUS CALCULATIONS MADE BY SHRI DE O HAVE NO RELEVANCE AND ARE PURE ESTIMATES OF THE VARIOUS PERMUTA TIONS AND COMBINATIONS TO EXTRACT AMOUNTS FROM RAUT FAMILY. THE AO , OVERLOOKING ALL THESE ASPECTS, ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.120/ - PER SQ.FT. WHICH IS NOT PROPER SINCE THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT RELIABLE OR CREDIBLE. THE ASSESSSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AO FAILED TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINING SHRI SANDEEP DEO AND M/S. KUMAR AND COM PANY WHO WERE EXAMINED BY HIM AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE REC ORDED U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT. 13 19. SO FAR AS ADOPTION OF RS.8/- PER SQ.FT. AS AGAINST RS.2 0/- PER SQ.FT. TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01-04-1981 IS CONCER NED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE OF THE COST OF LAND AT THE RATE OF RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01-04-1981 WAS VALUED ON THE BASIS OF THE RE PORT OF THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. THE VALUATION HAS BEEN DON E CONSIDERING THE LAND AS FREEHOLD AS ON 01-04-1981 WHEREA S THE INVESTIGATION WING AS WELL AS THE AO HAVE ERRONEOUSLY CO NCLUDED THAT THE LAND WAS UNDER RESERVATION. ALTHOUGH DETAILED SUBMISS ION WAS GIVEN TO THE AO ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF THE STATUS OF TH E LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 AS PER THE PMC, HOWEVER, THE AO HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE EVIDENCE AS CONSIDERING THE SAME WOULD PUT THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT OF VALUATION TO NAUGHT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD SOUGHT TO COMPARE THE COMPENSATION RATES OFFERED TO RAUT FAMILY BY THE PMC IN 1977 AND BY THE MSEB IN 1981 ALTHOUGH HE AGREED THAT COMPENSATION IS AT A RATE FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT AUT HORITY AND IS NOT MARKET VALUE AT WHICH VALUATION HAS TO BE MADE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION WAS FLA WED. IT WAS REITERATED THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF THE AO THAT THE LAND WAS UNDER RESERVATION WAS INCORRECT AS THE LANDS WERE IN THE RESID ENTIAL ZONE AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF PUNE CITY IN 1966. THE NEXT D EVELOPMENT PLAN WAS RELEASED ONLY IN 1987. 20. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT FULLY SATISFIED WITH THE EXP LANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE ADOPTION OF VALUE O F SALE RATE AT RS.120/- PER SQ.FT. AS AGAINST RS.80/- PER SQ.FT ADMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE LD.CIT(A) ANALYSED THE DOCUM ENT WHOSE ENGLISH TRANSLATION READS AS UNDER : 14 NAME SHARE OF MEMBER AGREED PRICE (RS.) ENHANC ED PRICE (RS.) AMOUNT RECEIVED (RS.) BALANCE (RS.) SHRI TAPOVARDHAN 2,24,565.66 SQ.FT. 100/ - 25% ON BALANCE AMOUNT PAYABLE (09 - 03 - 2000) 9,24,40,080/ - SHRI JAYVARDHAN -- -- 1,80,62,000/ - 3,36,087.56, I.E. 31,223,30 DRC SQ.MTRS. SHRI NARENDRA -- -- SMT. SUSHILABAI -- -- MISS. HEMLATA 5000 SQ.FT. 7,25,000 LUMPSUM MISS. PUSHPALATA -- -- MRS. ASHALATA -- -- (TOTAL 7 PERSONS) 9,13,262.64 SQ.FT., I.E. 84,844.17 SQ.MT. 9,20,01,264 - 00 (-)1,80,62,000-00 7,29,39,264 - 00 +1,84,84,816-00 9,24,40,080 - 00 21. AFTER CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SEIZED DOCUMENT, THE RATE OF COMPENSATION PER SQ.FT. WAS WORKED OUT BY HIM AS UNDER : TOTAL AREA OF LAND - 9,13,262.64 SQ.FT. ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION - 9,20,01,264/- ADD : ENHANCED COMPENSATION - 1,81,84,816/- @25% ------------------------ TOTAL CONSIDERATION - 11,04,94,080/- THUS, RATE PER SQ.FT. = TOTAL CONSIDERATION RS.11,0 4,94,080 RS.120.98 ------------------------- = ---------------- ---- = PER SQ.FT. TOTAL AREA 9,13,262.64 22. HE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE T AXABLE CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT AS THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION AS AGAINST RS.120/- PER SQ.FT. ADOPTED BY THE AO AND RS.80/ - PER SQ.FT. ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 23. SO FAR AS THE VALUATION OF LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 IS C ONCERNED HE DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF RS.9/- PER SQ.FT . FOR THE UNRESERVED LAND BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6.4 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FAC TS OF THE MATTER AND THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELL ANT FROM TIME TO TIME AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION IN THIS 15 CASE. THE AO HAS GIVEN A DETAILED EXPLANATION AS WE LL AS HIS REASONING FOR ADOPTION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.8/- P ER SQ.FT. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT HE HAS ALSO FORCEFULLY DEMONST RATED THAT THE VALUATION CARRIED OUT BY THE APPROVED VALUER WHILE DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 AT RS. 20/- PER SQ .FT. CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. AS POINTED OUT BY HIM, TWO DIFFERENT VALUATIO N REPORTS SHOWING TWO DIFFERENT MARKET VALUES AS ON 1-4-1981 WERE FOU ND DURING THE SEARCH, EACH ONE SHOWING A DIFFERENT FIGURE OF MARK ET VALUE AS ON THAT DATE. BOTH HAD BEEN PREPARED BY THE SAME VALUER WHO HAD ALSO MENTIONED THEREIN THAT THE REPORT WAS BEING PREPARE D BY HIM AFTER VISITING THE SITE. UPON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO, THE VALUER HAD NO CONVINCING EXPLANATION TO OFFER. UNDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AO THAT THE VALUE OF RS.20/- PER SQ. FT. CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BASED ON THE SAID VALUATION REPORT CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING THE SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE AND THE R EPORTS RECEIVED FROM THE AO, HOWEVER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE COS T OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AS ON 1-4-1981 IN THE PRESENT CASE WILL HAVE TO BE RECKONED BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE LAND WAS NOT UND ER RESERVATION. THE AO HAS CITED TWO INSTANCES OF ACQUISITION BY PU BLIC AUTHORITIES (PMC AND MSEB) IN THE SAME AREA AROUND THE SAME TIME FOR WHICH THE VALUE WORKS OUT TO RS.1.30 AND RS.4/- RESPECTIV ELY. THE LATTER INSTANCE IN FACT PERTAINS TO ACQUISITION OF A PIECE OF LAND BELONGING TO THE RAUT FAMILY ITSELF. THE APPELLANT HAS HOWEVER, ARGUED STRONGLY THAT THESE RATES ARE TOO LOW CONSIDERING THE MARKET VALU E PREVAILING AT THE RELEVANT TIME. THE APPROVED VALUER, IN HIS REPORT, HAS REFERRED TO AN INSTANCE OF SALE @ RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. FOR UNRESERVED LAND. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS BEFORE ME, THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW TH AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION AS ON 01-04-1981 SHOULD BE ADOPTED A T RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. FOR WORKING OUT THE COST OF ACQUISITI ON. IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL MAY BE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 24. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ASSESSING O FFICER ERRED IN COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,96,53,988/- AND CIT(A ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME IGNORING THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AND THE IR ACTION MAY BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. 2. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AC TION OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS INCOME ON ESTIMATED BASIS AT RS.140/- PER SQ. FT. IGNORING EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THEIR ACTION MAY BE HELD AS E RRONEOUS AND VACATED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 2, IT MAY BE HEL D CIT(A) 'S ACTION IN DIRECTING ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT RATE @ RS.120.98 PE R SQ. FT AS AGAINST RS.120/- RESULTS IN ENHANCING ASSESSMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCE SS & MAY BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND BE SET ASIDE AS ILLEGAL. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND CIT(A) IGNORED THE VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER DE TERMINING MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 @ RS.20/- SQ. FT AND ARBITRARILY ESTIM ATING @ RS.9/- AND THE ACTION MAY BE HELD AS ILLEGAL AND SUITABLY MODIFI ED. 16 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ASSESSING OF FICER AND CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS WITHOUT G IVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE, AND THEREFORE THIS ACTION MAY BE HELD AS NULLITY . 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ASSESSING OF FICER ,AND CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE AND CON FIRMED, TO VACATE THE SAME OR MAY BE SUITABLE MODIFIED AND JUST RELIEF PROVI DED TO THE APPELLANT. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR THE RIGHT TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUND, MODIFY THE GROUNDS RAISED AND/OR PRODUCE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 25. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS : ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT NO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN A.Y. 2001 - 02 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND LOCA TED AT S. NO. / 121A /122A, FINAL PLOT NO. 537, PARVATI, PUNE SINCE THE P OSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND WAS ALREADY GIVEN TO PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN F.Y. 1999 - 2000 AND THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO COMPLETED BE FORE 31.03.2000. 2. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE REFERRED LAND WAS A CQUIRED BY PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PRIOR TO 31.03.2000 A ND IN LIEU OF THE LAND ACQUIRED, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TRANSFERABLE DEVELOP MENT RIGHTS (TDR) FROM THE CORPORATION IN MARCH, 2000 AND ACCOR DINGLY, THE GAIN ARISING ON ACQUISITION OF THE ABOVE REFERRED LAND COU LD NOT BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2001- 02. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN A.Y. 2001 -02, ONLY THE C APITAL GAIN ON SALE OF TDR IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND THE COST OF ACQU ISITION BEING THE MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF TDR SHOULD BE GIVEN AS A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN WOULD BE RS. NIL AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF TDR (I.E. FMV IN MARCH, 2000) WOULD BE EQUAL TO THE SALE PRICE THEREOF IN A.Y. 2001- 02. 26. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IS LEGAL IN NATURE AND ALL THE FACTS ARE ON R ECORD. THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. RE LYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO NEW FACTS AR E REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS LEGAL ONE, THE REFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ADMITTED. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION HE R ELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 17 1) NTPC LTD. 222 ITR 383 (SC) 2) JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 187 ITR 688 3) AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. 199 ITR 351 (BOMBAY) 27. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 28. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TDR IS A NOTIONAL RIGHT AND THEREFORE PROFIT ON SALE OF TDR DOES NOT RESULT INTO ANY CAPITAL GAIN. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAMBHAJI NAGAR COOPE RATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VIDE ITA NO.1356 OF 2012 ORDER DATED 11-12- 2014, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT GAINS ON SALE OF TDR RECEIVED AS ADDITIONAL FSI AS PE R DC REGULATIONS HAS NO COST OF ACQUISITION AND IS NOT CHARGEAB LE TO CAPITAL GAINS. 29. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHELLY PRODUCTS AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 261 ITR 367 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE SAID DE CISION HAS HELD THAT IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO DEPO SIT BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION ADVANCE TAX OR SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX W HICH IS IN EXCESS OF HIS LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN FURNISHED O R THERE IS ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR OR INACCURACY, IT IS OPEN TO HIM TO CLAIM REFUND OF THE EXCESS TAX PAID IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. HE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE SUCH A CLAIM ALSO BEFORE THE CONCERNE D AUTHORITY CALCULATING THE REFUND. SIMILARLY, IF HE HAS BY MISTAKE OR INADV ERTENCE OR ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE, INCLUDED IN HIS INCOME ANY AMOU NT WHICH IS EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAX, OR IS NOT INCOME W ITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, HE MAY LIKEWISE BRING THIS TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHICH IF SATISFIED, MAY GRANT HIM RELIEF AN D 18 REFUND THE TAX PAID IN EXCESS, IF ANY. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE HONBLE COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE OR ANNULLED AND NO FURTHER ASSES SMENT CAN BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED ONLY TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAID CONSEQUENT TO FINAL ASSESSMENT, AND NOT THE TAX PAID BY HIM BY WAY OF ADVANCE TAX OR SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX. AMENDMENT OF S ECTION 240 W.E.F. 01-04-1989 BY ADDITION OF PROVISO (B) IS DECLARATORY OF T HE LAW AND THEREFORE RETROSPECTIVE. 30. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PMC ACQUIRED THE LAND WHICH W AS UNDER RESERVATION IN THE F.Y. 1999-2000. IN LIEU OF THE LAND ACQ UIRED BY THE CORPORATION THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TDR IN THE MONT H OF MARCH 2000 AND THEREFORE THE GAIN ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISIT ION OF THE LAND COULD NOT BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2001-02. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PMC, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 241 O F THE PAPER BOOK (ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGE 242) HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION TO THE PMC OF 11,69,904 SQ.FT. IN SURVEY NO.121A AND 122A/1, FINAL PLOT 537, 534A, SINHAGAD RO AD TO THE PMC. ACCORDINGLY, THE PMC HAS GRANTED TDR TO THE A SSESSEE AND THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. REFERRING TO THE COPIES OF THE TDR CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 256 TO 348 HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE TDR CERTIFICAT ES ARE ISSUED BY PMC IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2000 AND IN SOME OF THE C ASES LAND HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY PMC ON 12-07-1999. REFERRING TO T HE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN PARA 1.7 OF THE ORDER HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE DATE OF ISSUE OF DRC IS 03-01-00 FOR A PART OF THE LAND BEARING DRC NO. 2195 TO 2198 AND FOR THE OTHER PART 03-03-00 FOR DRC NO.2340 TO 2399. THEREFORE, WHEN THE PMC HAS ACQUIRED THE LAND IN MARCH 2000 AND HAS ISSUED TDR IN LIEU OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND, THE CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, ARISING ON 19 ACQUISITION OF THE LAND IS IN A.Y. 2000-01 AND THE SAME CAN NOT BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2001-02. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN SUBSEQUENT Y EAR, I.E. A.Y. 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE SOLD TDR WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN LIEU OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AND SINCE THERE IS HARDLY ANY DIFFER ENCE IN THE TIME PERIOD OF ALLOTMENT OF TDR AND THE SALE THEREOF, NO CAP ITAL GAIN IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX ON SALE OF TDR SINCE THE SELLING PRICE OF THE TDR WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO THE COST PRICE OF THE TDR WHICH WA S ALLOTTED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NO CAPITAL GAIN CAN BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2001-02. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOS ITION, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. ATUL G. PURANIK VS. ITO (2011) 30 CCH 0239 (MUM) ( TRIB) 2. ACIT VS. SHRI NIRMAL BHOGILAL ITA NO.2942/MUM/02 31. SO FAR AS ADOPTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.120.98 P ER SQ.FT. BY THE CIT(A) IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS ONLY RS.80/- PER SQ.FT. AND THERE WAS NO CO NCRETE EVIDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS.190.98 PER SQ.FT. HE SUBMITTE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE SEARCH PARTY DID NOT F IND ANY UNACCOUNTED ASSET TO THE EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE PRICE SHOWN AT RS.80/- PER SQ.FT. AND THE PRICE DETERMINED BY T HE CIT(A) AT RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT AND THEREFORE ADOPTION OF SALE CONSIDERA TION AT THE RATE OF RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 32. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) IS C ONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 WAS MU CH HIGHER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REFERRED TO ACQUISITION OF LAND AT PARVAT I BY PMC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER TANK IN THE YEAR 1977 WAS NOT COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE TH E SAID LAND WAS ON PARVATI HILL WHILE LAND IN QUESTION WAS TOUCHING THE ROAD. 20 THEREFORE, THE COMPARABLE INSTANCES REFERRED TO BY THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT AND ADOPTION OF FMV ON THE SAID BASIS SHOULD BE REJECTED. REFERRING TO THE READY RECKONER OF PMC, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 353 OF THE PAPER BOOK (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT P AGES 354 AND 355) HE SUBMITTED THAT READY RECKONER RATE AS ON 01-04-1989 OF THE SAID LAND WAS RS.1500 PER SQ.MTR. HE SUBMITTED THAT A S PER CIRCULAR NO.9 DATED 03-10-1989 THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01-04- 1981 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT 40% OF THE VALUE AS ON 198 9. CONSIDERING THE SAID CIRCULAR HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FMV A S PER READY RECKONER RATE AS ON 01-04-1981 WAS RS.55.74 PER SQ.FT. W HEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. 33. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATHE BISCUIT AND CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. V IDE ITA NO.1568/PN/2008 AND ITA NO.1329/PN/2009 ORDER DATED 0 6-09- 2010 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2007-08 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION, FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS, HAS ADOPTED SUC H PROPOSITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE THE ISSUE INV OLVED WAS REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF FMV AS ON 01-04-1981. TH E ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE FMV AT RS.1230 PER SQ.MTR. WHEREAS TH E AO ADOPTED THE FMV AT RS.15.30 PER SQ. MTR. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES HAD DETERMINED THE FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 01-04-1989 AT RS.1000 PER SQ.MTR. THE TRIBUNAL N OTED THAT THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF PUNE HAS ISSUED A CIRCULAR A S PER WHICH THE RATE OF THE SAID LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 WOULD B E ADOPTED AT THE RATE OF 40% OF THE VALUE DETERMINED AS ON 01-04-1 989. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE RATE OF LAND AS ON 01-0 4-1981 AT RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PR OPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AT BETTER LOCATION AND THE FACT THA T THE STAMP VALUATION RATES ARE GENERALLY LESSER THAN THE FMV, THE T RIBUNAL 21 DETERMINED THE FMV AT RS.630/- PER SQ.MTR. ADOPTING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATHE BIS CUIT AND CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BY CONSIDERING THE READY RECKONER RATE OF 1989 THE FMV OF THE SAID LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 WILL BE RS.55.74 PER SQ.FT. 34. REFERRING TO PAGE 355 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE CALCULA TION OF LAND RATE BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PROPOSITION AS ON 01-04-1981 AS PER READY RECKONER ACCORDING TO WHICH THE RATE PER SQ.FT. COMES TO RS.55.74 PER SQ.FT., THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : READY RECKONER RATE OF PARVATI AREA BASIS READY RE CKONER 1989 RATE PER SQ.MTR RS.1,500/- FURTHER, AS PER CIRCULAR NO.9 DATED 03/10/1989 THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1981 IS 40% OF VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1989 HENCE, VALUE OF LAND IS 40% OF 1500/- PER SQ. MTR 1 SQ.MTR = 10.764 PER SQ.FT. HENCE, RATE PER SQ.FT. RS.55.74 SQ.FT. WE HAVE TAKEN RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01-04-1981 35. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERE D RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01-04-1981, THEREFORE, THE SAME BEING LESS THAN RS.55.74 PER SQ.FT. CALCULATED ABOVE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 36. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ERROR IN CONSIDERING ACTUAL AREA TRANSFERRED BY THE FAMIL Y. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED CAP ITAL GAIN BY CONSIDERING THE AREA OF LAND AT 231426 SQ.FT. THE AO IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CONSIDERED THE AREA AT 224565 S Q.FT. REFERRING TO PAGE 357 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE DETAILS OF TDR TRANSFER RED ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED ONLY 200393 SQ.FT . INADVERTENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED 231426 SQ.FT. IN THE RETURN 22 FILED BY IT WHEREAS THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS C ONSIDERED THE TRANSFER OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AT 224565 SQ.FT. HE ACC ORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT A DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL AREA OF THE TDR SOLD AS MENTIO NED IN THE ABOVE TABLE. 37. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ACQUIRED THE ANCESTRAL LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND FAMILY MEMBERS AND IN LIEU OF THE SAME THE GOVERNMENT HA D GRANTED TDR. AFTER THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 01-09-2004 TH E ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 11-03-2005. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS HAD SHO WN CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMEN T. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED THE SALE PRICE AT THE RATE OF RS.120/- PER SQ.FT. AS AGAINST RS.80/- PER SQ.FT. DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, THE AO CONSIDERED THE COST OF ACQUISIT ION AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.8/- PER SQ.FT. WHICH WAS ENHANCED BY T HE CIT(A) TO RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.15 3A R.W.S. 143(3) ON 29-12-2006. THE CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER ON 28 -11-2012. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE QUESTION OF YEAR OF TAXABILITY WAS N EITHER RAISED BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME TH E ISSUE REGARDING THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOW STATING THAT CAPITAL GAIN CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX ONL Y IN A.Y. 2000- 01 AND NOT IN A.Y. 2001-02 BECAUSE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN TO THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE MARCH 2000 AND GOVERNMENT HAS ALSO ISSUED TDR BEFORE MARCH 2000. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT BY MISTAKE OR IGNORANCE CAPITAL GAIN BE SHOWN IN A.Y. 2001-02. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AO COMMITTED MISTAKE. H E 23 SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME COUNSEL WAS APPEARING BEFORE TH E AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE COUNSEL WAS NOT AWARE OF IT ESPECIALLY WHEN NO GROUND WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY AFTER THE TIME LIMIT FOR ALL RE MEDIAL MEASURES WERE LAPSED THE ASSESSEE TOOK A GROUND BEFORE THE ITAT THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN IF ANY CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX ONLY IN A.Y . 2000-01 AND NOT IN A.Y. 2001-02. 38. SO FAR AS SALE OF TDR IN A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 AR E CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO 147 PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED IN 153A ASSESSMENT IS INCORRECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS CANNOT BE THE PROPOSITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GOT AMPLE POWER TO GIVE DIRECTION TO BRING THE INCOME TO TAX IN THE CORRECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. VIJAY JOHAR VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2004) 190 CTR 352 ( RAJASTHAN) 2. ACIT VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR REPORTED IN (2008) 24 SOT 26 2 (DELHI) 3. KALYAN ALA BAROT VS. M.H. RATHOD REPORTED IN 327 ITR 521 4. CIT VS. PP ENGINEERING WORK REPORTED IN 369 ITR 433 (DELHI) 5. KAMATA SHAMRAO RAOJI VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2009) 120 TTJ 275 (PUNE) HE SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 39. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDER SUB MITTED THAT EVEN IF A DIRECTION IS GIVEN BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO UNDER WHICH PROVISION THE TRIBUNAL CAN GIVE DIRECTION. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RADHESHYAMB. AGRAWAL VIDE ITA NOS. 160 AND 161/PN/2009 ORDER DATED 13-03-2015 FOR A.YRS. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TR IBUNAL, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF DHFL VENTURE CAPITAL FUND VS. ITO AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 358 ITR 24 475 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CARGO CLEARING AGENCY VS. JCIT REPORTED IN 307 ITR 1 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, HAS HELD THAT NO NOTICE U/S.147 CAN BE ISS UED IN CASE OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND NO CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 40. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OWNED AN ANCESTRAL LAND NEAR PARVATI, PUNE WHICH WAS RESERVED AND SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED BY PMC. ON ACQUISITION OF THE LAND THE PMC GRANTED THE TDR TO THE A SSESSEE AND OTHER MEMBERS. THE LAND WAS UNDER RESERVATION SINCE 19 65. IN THE YEAR 1992 THE RAUT FAMILY EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT TO SE LL THE LAND UNDER RESERVATION TO M/S. KUMAR AND COMPANY. HOWEVER, LATER ON SHRI VIMALKUMAR JAIN OF KUMAR COMPANY ACQUIRED IRREVOCABLE P OWER OF ATTORNEY FROM RAUT FAMILY FOR DEALING IN TDR WHICH WOULD BE ALLOTTED ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND BY PMC. THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED DECLARED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF TDR AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1,42,580/- FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSI DERED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AND THE SALE VALUE OF TDR AT RS.80/- PER SQ.FT . THE AO ON THE BA SIS OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS ON 01-09-2004 D ETERMINED THE FMV AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.8/- PER SQ.FT. AND THE S ALE CONSIDERATION OF THE TDR AT RS.120/- PER SQ.FT. WE FIND IN A PPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE 25 PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE RATE PER SQ.FT. OF TDR AT RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT. AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01- 04-1981 AT RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. 41. IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADOPTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT. BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS O NLY RS.80/- PER SQ.FT. AND THERE WAS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT THE SEARCH PARTY DID NOT FIND ANY UNACCOUNTED ASS ET TO THAT EXTENT AND THEREFORE ADOPTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT TH E RATE OF RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 42. SO FAR AS THE ADOPTION OF RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01 -04-1981 IS CONCERNED IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE THAT AS PER CIRCULAR NO.9 DATED 03-10-1989 THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT 40% OF THE VALUE AS ON 1989. 43. SO FAR AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE PMC ACQUIRED THE LAND WHICH WAS UNDER RESERVATION IN THE F.Y. 1999-00 AND IT HAD RECEIVED TDR IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2000, THEREFORE, THE G AIN ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND COULD NOT BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2001- 02. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE THAT SINCE TDRS WERE SOLD IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THERE FORE, TAXING THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEA R IS ALSO NOT PROPER AND ONLY SALE CONSIDERATION RELATABLE TO THIS YEAR CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CLERICAL ERRORS AS REGA RDS THE EXTENT OF TDR SOLD. 26 44. WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ARGUMENT S ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, VIS--VIS THE MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE PMC IN THE F.Y. 1999-2000 AND TDR WAS RECEIVED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2 000 FOR WHICH THE GAIN ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND COULD NOT BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2001-02 IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT. THE TAX HA S BEEN LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE OF TDR DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE TDR HAS BEEN OBTAINED ON ACCOUN T OF ACQUISITION OF LAND BY PMC. IT IS NOT A CASE THAT THE VALU E OF THE LAND IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO CAPITAL G AIN TAX AT ALL OR THAT IT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THIS YEAR BECAUSE IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2000- 2001 IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT. THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 45. SO FAR AS ADOPTION OF RATE OF RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT. AS TH E SALE CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE BAS IS OF THE ENTRIES FOUND ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AT PAGE 41 OF THE LOOSE PAPER BUNDLE NO.12 HAS COMPUTED RATE PER SQ.FT. AT RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT T HE FACTUAL ANALYSIS DONE BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. MERELY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT FIND ANY UNACCOU NTED ASSET CANNOT BE A GROUND TO ADOPT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.80/- PER SQ.FT. AS AGAINST RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT. COMPUTED BY THE CIT( A) ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REA SONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ADOPTING THE RATE PER SQ.FT. AT RS.120.98 PE R SQ.FT. AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAME THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 27 DETERMINING THE RATE PER SQ.FT. AT RS.120.98 PER SQ.FT. IS UPH ELD AND THE GROUND RAISED ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 46. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE OF FMV PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01- 04-1981, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT PREPAR ED BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER NAMELY SHRI S.R. NIMBAL, VALUE D THE COST OF THIS LAND AT RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01-04-1981. WE FIND THE AO REFERRED TO THE 2 VALUATION REPORTS PREPARED BY THE SAME VALUER FOR THE SAME PIECE OF LAND FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND NOTED THAT ONE VALUATION REPORT SHOWS THE VALUE OF THE LAND A S ON 01-04- 1981 AT RS.45 LAKHS WHEREAS THE OTHER VALUATION REPORT SHOWS THE SAME AT RS.35 LAKHS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY REPL Y FROM THE VALUER WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S.131 ON 15-09-2004 THE AO REJECTED THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE VALUER. THE REPLY OF THE VALUER THAT IN THE FIRST VALUATION REPOR T HE HAS OVERLOOKED THE PRESENCE OF WATER TANK ON THAT LAND FOR WHICH THE SECOND VALUATION REPORT WAS PREPARED WAS DISBELIEVED BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE AO ALSO REFERRED TO THE DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SANDEEP DEO THAT PMC HAS GIVEN AN AWARD OF RS.98,180/- IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AT PARVATI, PUNE BELO NGING TO SHRI L.M. RAUT. ACCORDING TO THE SAID AWARD GIVEN IN 1 977 FOR AN AREA ACQUIRED FOR PMC WATER TANK IS 6567.20 SQ.MTRS FOR W HICH THE RATE WORKS OUT TO ABOUT RS.1.30 PER SQ.FT. THEREFORE, ACC ORDING TO THE AO, THE RATE OF THE LAND BELONGING TO THE RAUT FAMILY IN 1 981 SHOULD BE SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THIS VALUE BUT NOT AT RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SIMILARLY REFERRED TO THE LAND A CQUIRED BY MSEB AT PARVATI BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE SOMETIME AROU ND 1981 ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COMPENSATION WAS GIVEN AT THE RA TE OF RS.4/- PER SQ.FT. 28 47. IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IS TOUCHING THE ROAD AND THER EFORE BETTER THAN THE LAND BELONGING TO SHRI L.M. RAUT SITUATED ON THE HILL TOP. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E. WE FIND FROM THE NOTIFICATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPE R BOOK PAGES 353 AND 354 THAT THE READY RECKONER RATE AS O N 01-04-1981 OF THE SAID LAND WAS RS.1,500/- PER SQ.MTR. AS PER CIRCULAR N O.9 DATED 03-10-1989 THE READY RECKONER RATES FOR STAMP VALUATIO N HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED W.E.F. 1989 ONLY AND AS PER THE CIRCULAR DATED 03-1 0-1989 THE VALUE OF LAND IN THE YEAR 1981 WILL BE 40% OF THE VALUE IN 1 989 (I.E. 40% OF RS.1,500/- PER SQ.MTR, I.E. RS.600 PER SQ.MTR). 48. WE FIND A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CASE HAD COME UP BEFORE TH E PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATHE BISCUIT AND CHO COLATE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF FMV AS ON 01-04-1981. THE ASSESSE E HAD ADOPTED THE FMV AT RS.1,230/- PER SQ.MTR WHEREAS THE AO ADOPTED THE FMV OF RS.15.23/- PER SQ.MTR. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSID ERING THE ABOVE CIRCULAR NOTED THAT THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES HAD DETERMINED THE FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 01-04-1989 AT RS.1 ,000/- PER SQ.MTR. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE CIRCULAR C ONSIDERED THE RATE OF THE LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 AT 40% OF THE VA LUE DETERMINED AS ON 01-04-1989. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE P ROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AT A BETTER LOCATION AND HOLDING THA T THE STAMP VALUATION RATES ARE GENERALLY LESSER THAN THE FMV, THE T RIBUNAL DETERMINED THE FMV AT RS.630/- PER SQ.MTR. ADOPTING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATHE BISCUIT AND CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) WE FIND THE FMV OF THE SAID LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 COMES TO RS.55.74 PER SQ.FT. IF THE READY 29 RECKONER RATE OF 1989 AT RS.1,500/- PER SQ.MTR IS CONSIDE RED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.20/- PER SQ.FT . AS AGAINST RS.55.74 PER SQ.FT. AS PER THE READY RECKONER RATE OF 1 989 AND PROPORTIONATELY BROUGHT DOWN TO 1981 RATE THE SAME A PPEARS TO BE REASONABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE RATE OF RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01-04-1981 AND COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN. 49. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THIS YEAR SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE TDRS IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, WE FIND SOME FORCE IN IT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED HAS FURNISHED THE DE TAILS OF PARTY-WISE SUMMARY ALONG WITH COPIES OF TDR/DRC ALLOTTED B Y PMC ON 03-03-00 AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 248 TO 348. THESE D OCUMENTS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). E VEN THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 3 HAS MENTIONED THE D ATE OF ISSUE OF DRC AS ON 03-01-00 AND 03-03-00. THE DETAILS OF UTILIZATIO N OF DRC AND TRANSFERS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 256 TO 347 SHOW THE SALES IN DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS. FOR EXAMPLE CERTIFICATE NO.0002195 SHOWS SALE OF 297 SQ.MTRS ON 01-02-00 TO SHR I D.M. BHUTALA, ANOTHER 392 SQ.MTRS ON 01-02-00 TO SHRI S.S. RAU T. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 69 SQ.MTRS ON 18-10-00 TO SHRI VIMALKU MAR JAIN AND ANOTHER 25 SQ.MTRS ON 11-11-00 TO SHRI V.D. DHATTAR , 100 SQ.MTRS ON 19-12-00 TO SHRI ANJUM PARVEZ PATEL. THE AS SESSEE HAS SOLD 62 SQ.MTRS ON 27-04-2002 TO SHRI ANJUM PARVEZ PA TEL. AS PER CERTIFICATE NO.0002196 THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 561 SQ.MTRS TO SHRI VIMALKUMAR JAIN ON 18-10-00. AS PER CERTIFICATE NO.0002340 APART FROM SALE OF TDR DURING F.Y. 2000-01 THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 28.81 SQ.MTRS TO SHRI SAYED ABBAS ZAIDI ON 16-12-2002. THESE ARE ONLY SOME OF THE EXAMPLES. THE VARIOUS CERTIFICATES FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK 30 SHOW SALE OF TDR IN DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS AND THE ENTIRE S ALE DOES NOT RELATE TO THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ALTHOUGH D OCUMENTS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) THEY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY ON THE BASIS OF SALE OF TD R. THEREFORE, WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT CORRECT INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED IN T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM FROM THE UTILIZATION OF DRC AND TRANSFER CERTIFICATES AND BRING TO TAX THE CORRECT INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 50. SO FAR AS SALE PROCEEDS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS OT HER THAN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE AO WILL FOLLOW DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOR BRINGING TO TAX THE CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF TDRS IN RES PECTIVE YEARS. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 51. THE OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ERROR IN CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL AREA TRANSFERRED BY THE RAUT FAMILY. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN BY CONSIDERING TH E AREA OF LAND AT 231426 SQ.FT. WHEREAS THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE AREA AT 224565 SQ.FT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THE TOTAL AREA ALLOTTED WAS 1212360 SQ.FT. AND THE SHARE OF THE FAMIL Y MEMBERS AS PER PAGE 357 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS AS UNDER : SHRI TAPOWARDHAN V. RAUT 200393 SQ.FT. SHRI JAYWARDHAN S. RAUT 200393 SQ.FT. SHRI NARENDRA S. RAUT 200393 SQ.FT. MISS SUSHILABAI S. RAUT 200393 SQ.FT. MISS PUSHPLATA S. RAUT 200393 SQ.FT. MISS HEMLATA S. RAUT 200393 SQ.FT. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE EXACT AREA CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL AREA OF TDR SOLD AND 31 COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS AS W ELL AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGL Y DECIDED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 52. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE OTHER FAM ILY MEMBERS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW : SL.NO. ITA NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASST. YEAR 1 ITA NO.273/PN/2013 JAYAWARDHAN SAYAJIRAO RAUT A.Y. 2001 - 02 2 ITA NO.275/PN/2013 LATE RAUT MISS. PUSHPA SAYAJIRAO RAUT A.Y. 2001 - 02 3 ITA NO.278/PN/2013 LATE SUSHILABHAI SAYAJIRAO RAUT A.Y. 2001 - 02 4 ITA NO.279/PN/2013 SMT. HEMLATA SAYAJIRAO RAUT A.Y. 2001 - 02 5 ITA NO.280/PN/2013 SHRI NARENDRA SAYAJIRAO RAUT A.Y. 2001 - 02 53. WE FIND THE GROUNDS BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES ARE ID ENTICAL TO GROUNDS TAKEN IN ITA NO.276/PN/2013. WE HAVE ALREADY D ECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEE N PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. FOLLOWING SIMILAR REASONINGS T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.277/PN/2013 (SHRI TAPOVARDHAN SAYAJIRAO RAUT (A.Y. 2005-06) : 54. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ASSESSING OF FICER ERRED IN COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.5,53,807/- AND CIT(A) E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME IGNORING THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AND THEIR A CTION MAY BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. 2. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AC TION OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS INCOME ON ESTIMATED BASIS AT RS.140/- PER SQ. FT. IGNORING EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THEIR ACTION MAY BE HELD AS E RRONEOUS AND VACATED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 2, IT MAY BE HEL D CIT(A) 'S ACTION IN DIRECTING ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT RATE @ RS.120.98 PE R SQ. FT AS AGAINST RS.120/- RESULTS IN ENHANCING ASSESSMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCE SS & MAY BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND BE SET ASIDE AS ILLEGAL. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND CIT(A) IGNORED THE VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER DE TERMINING MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 @ RS.20/- SQ. FT AND ARBITRARILY ESTIM ATING @ RS.9/- AND THE ACTION MAY BE HELD AS ILLEGAL AND SUITABLY MODIFI ED. 32 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ASSESSING OF FICER AND CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS WITHOUT G IVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE, AND THEREFORE THIS ACTION MAY BE HELD AS NULLITY . 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ASSESSING OF FICER, AND CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE AND CON FIRMED, TO VACATE THE SAME OR MAY BE SUITABLE MODIFIED AND JUST RELIEF PROVI DED TO THE APPELLANT. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR THE RIGHT TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUND, MODIFY THE GROUNDS RAISED AND/OR PRODUCE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 55. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEA RING DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 3 AND GROUNDS OF APPEA L NO.5 FOR WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECT ION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 56. SO FAR AS THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED, THE ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ESTIMATING T HE VALUE OF LAND AT RS.9/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01-04-1981 AS AGAINST RS.2 0/- PER SQ.FT. CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 57. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THIS ISSUE HAD C OME UP IN A.Y. 2001-02 IN ITA NO.276/PN/2013 FOR A.Y. 2001-02. WE HA VE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AND THE RATE OF RS.20/- PER SQ.FT AS ON 01-04-1981 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 58. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 59. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE OTHER FAM ILY MEMBERS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW : 33 SL.NO. ITA NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASST. YEAR 1 ITA NO.274/PN/2013 SHRI JAYAWARDHAN SAYAJIRAO RAUT A.Y. 200 5 - 06 2 ITA NO.281/PN/2013 SHRI NARENDRA SAYAJIRAO RAUT A.Y. 2005 - 06 60. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN THE PRECEDING PARAS WE DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE RATE OF RS.20/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01-04-1981. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1501/PN/2013 (SHRI SATYARAJ SAYAJIRAO RAUT ( A.Y. 2001-02) : 61. THERE WAS DELAY OF 5 MONTHS AND 8 DAYS IN FILING OF T HIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT REQUESTING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT A LIBERAL APPROACH IS NECESSARY FOR ADVANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WHILE CONDONING THE D ELAY. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APP EAL BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONDONED. 62. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE SIDE S THE DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONDONED. 63. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE A DDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL T O THE GROUNDS IN ITA NO.276/PN/2013. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUES AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONINGS, THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 34 64. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEES FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISPOSED OF IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-01-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; DATED : 29 TH JANUARY, 2016 LRH'K ' (!* + / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ ( ) , / THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE 4. $ , / THE CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. ' **+ , + , IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, A PUNE 6. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ' * //TRUE COPY// 12 * + / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY +, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE