Samuben Kalubhai Barwad, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2801/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9808 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K C THAKKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 201; 143(2); 55A; 48; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY , JUDICIAL MEMBER SAMUBEN KALUBHAI BHARWAD, 127, SINDHVAI MATA GAM, BHARVAD VAS, CTM CHAR RASTA, AHMEDABAD PAN: BXIPB6635C (APPELLANT) VS THE IT O , WARD - 6 ( 1 )(1 ) , AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARWAD, SINDHVAI MATA GAM BHARVAD VAS, CMT CROSS ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN: AMHPB9023F (APPELLANT) VS THE IT O , WARD - 6( 1 )(1) , AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI N.K. GOYAL , SR. D . R. AS SESSEE BY: SHRI K.C. THAKKAR , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20 - 11 - 2 019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 12 - 2 019 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - I T A NO . 2801 / A HD/20 17 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 ITA NO. 2802 /AHD/20 17 ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 I.T.A NO S . 2801 & 2802 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI SAMUBEN KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. IT O & JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. ITO 2 BOTH THE APPEALS ARE PERTAINE D TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - 6 AHMEDABAD. IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE COMMON ISSUE ON SIMILAR FACTS ARE INVOLVED THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE ADJUDICATED TOGETHER BY THIS COMMON ORDER BY TAKING THE FACTS OF THE APPEAL 2801 /AHD/2017 AS A LEAD CASE AND ITS FINDING WILL BE APPLICABLE TO 2802/AHD/201 7 ITA NO. 2801/AHD/2017 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GR OUNDS OF APPEAL: - THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT SHE FINDS NO REASON THAT SINCE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUE AS PER SALE DEED AND AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION IS LESS THAN 5 % THE S TAMP DUTY VALUATION SHOULD BE IGNORED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE SECOND AND THE THIRD GROUND BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTION AGAINST THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DVO WAS NOT VALID AND THEREBY CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,60,429/ - MADE BY THE AO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.26,60,429/ - . 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY BE SE ASIDE AND THE ADDITIONS OF RS.26,60,429/ - MAY BE DELETED. 3 . THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3 , 39 , 200/ - WAS FILED ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2014. THE CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 2 ND AUGUST, 2016. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED LONG CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 , 54 , 701/ - ON SALE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET ( LAND AT SURVEY 605 , TP SCHEME 92 , MOJE SARKHEJ , AH MEDABA D ) . THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATE D THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 5% SHARES OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS . 5 , 63 , 01 , 000/ - & RS. 25,87,200/ - RESPECTIVELY ON 7 TH FEB, 2014 ON SALE OF LAND AT SURVEY NO. 605 & 605/2 . HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF SALE DEED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT VALUE OF SOLD LAND AS PER PAYMENT OF S TAMP DUTY WAS TO THE AMOUNT OF R S. 5 , 87 , 13 , 900/ - AND RS. I.T.A NO S . 2801 & 2802 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI SAMUBEN KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. IT O & JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. ITO 3 26 , 98 , 100/ - RESPECTIVELY. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE CAPITAL GAI N AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE A CT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO EXPLAIN WHY NOT CAPITAL G AIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX SHOULD BE RE - WORKED ON TAKING FULL V ALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY U/S . 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ANNEXED VALUATION REPORT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTE D COST OF THE SOLD LAND AS ON 01 - 0 4 - 1981 AT RS. 715 PER SQ. MT. AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981. THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE SOLD PROPERTY AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AT HIGHER RATE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER IN HIS VALUATION REPORT HAD NOT GIVEN ANY DESCRIPTION OF ANY SALE IN STANCES AND IT WAS MADE ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS. T HEREFORE , THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO . T HE DVO HAS ESTIMATED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SOLD LAND AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AT RS. 41.58 PER SQ. MT. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT VARIOUS SALES INSTANCES OF TH AT PERIOD IN HIS VALUATION REPORT. AFTER APPLYING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS. 41.8 PER SQUARE METER AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY AT RS. 26 , 60 , 429/ - AND ADDED TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE 4 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER: - 4.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND SUBMISS IONS OF THE APPELLANT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ADJUDICATED AS UNDER. 4.3.1 IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT SOLD A PIECE OF LAND COMPRISING OF LANDS FINAL PLOT NO 605/1 AND FINAL PLOT NUMBER 605/2 IN TP SCHEME NUMBER 92, M OJE SARKEJ, TALUKA AND DISTRICT AHMEDABAD. SHARE OF THE APPELLANT WAS 5% IN THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION F OR THE SAID TWO PLOTS WAS RS. 5,63,01,000/ - AND RS. 25,87,200/ - RESPECTIV ELY ON 7.2.2014. HOWEVER, THE AO CALCULATED THE I.T.A NO S . 2801 & 2802 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI SAMUBEN KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. IT O & JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. ITO 4 S ALE CONSIDERATIO N OF THE ABOVE TWO PLOTS AT RS. 87,13,900/ - AND RS. 26,98,100/ - BASED ON STAMP DUTY VALUATION. ACCORDINGLY, TH E SHARE OF THE APPELLANT @ 5% WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 29,35,695/ - AND RS. 1,!34,905/ - RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT HAS OBJECTED TO THE A O TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER VALUATION BASED ON STAMP DUTY VALUATION. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION EVIDENCED BY THE SALE DEED IS N EGLIGIBLE THAT IS EVEN LESS THAN_5%, THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATED VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY MAY BE IGNORED AND SECTION 50C OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE INVOKED. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL JUDGMENTS WHICH SAY THAT IF TH E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUATION AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND AS EVIDENCED BY SALE DEED IS LESS THAN 10%, IT SHOULD BE IGNORED. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMEN TS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION : 38 DTR 0019 (PUNE) ITA/S23/JP/2013 DATED 27/7/2016 ITA/5402/MUM/2014 DATED 23/11/2016 ITA/7545/MUM/2014 DATED 25/1/2017 THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, I FIND NO REASON TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SINCE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUE AS PER SALE DEED AND AS P ER STAMP DUTY VALUATION IS LESS THAN 5%, THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION SHOULD BE IGNORED. STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO ACCEPT IT ESPECIALLY WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RAISED ANY VALID O BJECTION. THEREFORE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS SOLD AT RS. 5,87,13,900/ - AND RS. 26,98,100/ - RESPECTIVELY. 4.3.2 FURTHER, WHILE ADOPTING THE PURCHASE COST OF THE ABOVE LANDS AS ON 1/4/81 THE APPE LLANT TOOK THE VALUE @ RS.715 PER SQ. MTR . BASED ON VALUATION DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE AO NOT FINDING THE VALUATION DOPE BY REGISTERED VALUER ACCEPTABLE, HE REFERRED THE MATTER TO DVO UNDER SECT ION 55A OF THE ACT. THE DVO DETERMINED THE PURCHASE COST OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AS ON 1 - 4 - 1981 AT RS. 4.58 PER SQ. MTR. BY TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1/4/81 @ OF RS.41.58 PER SQ. MTR. THE AO COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLA NT AT RS. 29,15,120/ - . SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,54,701/ - THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 26,60,429/ - TO THE CAPITAL GAINS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS OBJECTED TO THE COST OF LAND AS ON 1/4/1981 AS ADOPTED BY THE AO BASED ON REPORT OF DVO AT RS 41.58 PER SQ. MTR. THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT IN THE REPORT OF THE DVO THE COMPARABLES TAKEN ARE NOT PROPER. AS PER THE APPELLANT THE DVO HAS SHOWN COMPARABLE SALES INSTANCES OF 4 PROPERTIES WH ICH INVOLVED LAND ADMEASURING MINIMUM 51.40 PER SQ. MTR. AND MAXIMUNNJ 1 LL. : 36 PER SQ. MTR. THE APPELLANT SAYS THAT THE COMPILATION OF THESE SMALL PLOTS OF LANDS IS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE LAND SOLD IN THE INSTANT CASE WHICH MEASURED 8012 PER SQ. MTR . ON CONS IDERATION OF TOTAL FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT BONA FIDE. HE HAS ONLY RAISED THE OBJECTION THAT THE DVO HAS TAKEN SMALL PLOTS OF LANE AS COMPARABLES. HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN SYNBOTICS WADI WADI AND OTHERS V /S ACIT (2016) 48 ITR (TRIB.) 02 10 (AHMEDABAD) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS. 'THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED ITS OBJECTIONS WHICH MAINLY CONSIST OF FACT THAT THESE LANDS ARE SMALL IN AREA AND ARE LOCATED 2 TO 3 KM AWAY FROM THE LAND OF THE APPELLANT. BUT STILL FACT R EMAINS THAT AS ON 01.04.1981, THE LAND OF THE APPELLANT WAS BEING USED AS INDUSTRIAL LAND AND WAS LOCATED ON OUTSKIRTS OF THE BARODA CITY. HENCE, THE VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD B Y THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE MUCH MORE DIFFERENT THAN THE SALE RATES OF LAND SOLD IN SAYAJIGUNJ' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE COMPARABLES BEING SMALL IS NOT VALID OBJECTION. THEREFORE, IT I S HELD THAT THERE IS N O SUBSTANCE IN THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, I AM INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 41.58 PER SQ. MTR AS ADOPTED BY THE DVO IN HIS REPORT. 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE , I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL CAPITAL GA INS ON THE SALE OF ABOVE LAND AT RS 29,15,120/ - AND MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 26,60,429/ - TO THE CAPITAL GAINS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,60,429/ - IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. REGARDING GROUND NO. ONE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUE AS PER SALE DEED AND AS PER STAMP DUTY IS LESS THAN 5%. WE DO NOT FIND I.T.A NO S . 2801 & 2802 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI SAMUBEN KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. IT O & JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. ITO 5 ANY SUBSTANCE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN V IEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. THE GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 4 ARE ADJUDICATED TOGETHER AS FOLLOWS: - DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDING TO VALUE ASSESSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY ON THE SALE OF IMPUGNED ASSET BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT . THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN AS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED INFIRMITY IN THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER ON THE GROUND THAT CO ST OF ACQUISITION WAS ESTIMATED ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ANY INSTANCES OF LAND SOLD IN THE AREA. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REF ERRED THE IS SUE OF DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SOLD PROPERTY TO THE DVO. THE DVO HAS ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SOLD LAND AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 @ RS. 41 PER SQ. MT. AS AGAINST THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAME LAND ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE @ 715 PER SQ. MT. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELE VANT MATERIAL AND COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES IN THE NEARBY VICINITY. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SALE VALUE O F THE SOLD PROPERTY AS ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES ACCORDING TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF BOTH THE LANDS AT RS. 30 , 70 , 600/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE C OST OF ACQUISITION WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 1 , 55 , 480 AS PER REPORT OF DVO AFTER APPLYING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.26 , 60 , 429/ - AFTER REDUCING INDEXED COST OF A I.T.A NO S . 2801 & 2802 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI SAMUBEN KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. IT O & JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. ITO 6 ACQUISITION OUT OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION ( RS. 30,70,600 - 1,55,480) WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BE FORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED THAT THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DVO WAS NOT VALID. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE BOTH THE REPORTS I.E. REGISTERED VALUER AS PER THE COPY OF THE REPORT PLACED AT PAGE NO. 12 TO 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO GONE THROUGH TH E COPY OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO PLACED AT PAGE NO. 26 TO 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS. 715 PER SQ. MT. OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF REVERSE INDEXATION . I T IS NOTICED THAT REGISTERED VALU ER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AN Y COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE TO ARRIVE AT FAIR MARK ET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. TH E DVO HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES IN THE NEARB Y VICINITY OF THE SOLD LAND AS DEMONSTRATED IN HIS REPORT AT PAGE NO. 32 OF TH E PAPER BOOK . WE OBSERVE THAT THE VALUATION REPORT AD OPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER WA S NOT BASED ON AC TUAL SALE INSTANCES AND SAME WAS DRAWN ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS WHERE AS THE DVO HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON T H E BASIS OF COMPARABLE SALE INSTAN CE METHOD OF LAND AFTER TAKING IN TO ACCOUNT SALE INSTANCES. THE DVO HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO INCLUDED IN HIS VALUATION REPORT ONE OF THE SALE INSTANCES QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REPORTED AT PARA 11 OF THE REPORT. HOW EVER IN SPITE OF PROVIDING A NUMBER OF OP POR T U NITIES THE ASSES S E E HA S FAILED TO FURNISH ANY OTHER SALES INSTANCES OF HIS CHOICE FOR INCLUDING THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO. SUBSEQUENTLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , T HE ASSESSEE HA S OBJECTED THAT DVO HA S TAKEN SALE INSTANCES OF FOUR PLOTS WHICH WERE IN SMALLER SIZE COMPARED TO THE LAND SIZE OF THE PLOT SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE AND LOCATION OF THE PLOT NEAR TO THE TOWN OF SARKHEJ. IT IS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF VALUATION THE ASSESSE HAS SUBMITTED O NLY ONE I.T.A NO S . 2801 & 2802 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI SAMUBEN KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. IT O & JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. ITO 7 COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE SALE COMPARABLES BY THE DVO AND IN SPITE OF GIVING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SALES COMPARABLE OF HIS CHOICE. THE DVO HAS REPORTED FOUR COMPARABLE SALE INSTA NCES @ RS. 97.28 PER SQ. MT , 71.84 PER SQ. MT., 72.48 PER SQ. MT. AND 158.63 PER SQ. MT. AS PER PAGE NO. 32 OF THE DV O REPORT PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. A FTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SOLD LAND WAS LOCATED VERY NEAR T O THE TOWN, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO ADOPT HIGHEST SALE INSTANCE OF RS. 158.63 PER SQ. MT . AS AGAINST 41.58 PER SQ. MT. ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AS PER DVO REPORT FOR COMPUTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SOLD LAND AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 SUBJECT TO INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSES SEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACT THEREFORE THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ADJUDICATED AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE C ASE AS REPORTED ABOVE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER ADOPTING FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE SOLD LAND @ 158.63 PER SQ. MT. AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 SUBJECT TO INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION. THEREFORE, T HE GROUND NO . 1 IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ITA NO. 2802/AHD/2017 7 . THE SAME FACT AND IDENTICAL ISSUE ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AS WE HAVE AD JUDICATED VIDE ITA NO. 2801/AHD/2017, THEREFORE, APPLYING THE SAME FINDING, WE ALS O DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER I.T.A NO S . 2801 & 2802 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI SAMUBEN KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. IT O & JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARWAD VS. ITO 8 ADOPTING THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE OF THE SOLD PROPERTY A S ON 01 - 04 - 1981 @ 158.63 PER SQ. MT SUBJECT TO INDEX COS T OF ACQUISITION. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 20 - 12 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( MADHUMITA ROY ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 20 /12 /2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,