Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, V. Shirole Vasundhara Dinkarrao, Pune

ITA 3/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6619 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 54F; 139(1); 55A

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.03/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, PUNE. . APPELLANT V/S SMT. SHIROLE VASUNDHARA DINKARRAO, 886, DINKAR NIWAS, BHANDARKAR ROAD, PUNE 16. PAN : ACMPS4066J. RESPONDENT !'. / CO NO.01/PUN/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.03/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. SHIROLE VASUNDHARA DINKARRAO, 886, DINKAR NIWAS, BHANDARKAR ROAD, PUNE 16. PAN : ACMPS4066J. . CROSS-OBJECTOR. V/S THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, PUNE. . APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE. REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE. / ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND CORRESPONDING CROSS-OBJECTION (C.O.,) BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF / DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.09.2020 2 THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) 10, PUNE DATED 28.10.2016 FOR A.Y. 2 010-11 AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD : 1 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE VALUAT I ON REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PIMPLE GURAV LAND WHEN THE VALUER IS REG I STERED AS A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER U/S 34AB OF WEALTH TAX ACT , 1957 AS A VALUER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND IS NOT COMPETENT T O SUBMIT VALUAT I ON REPORT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CALLING ASSESSING OFFICER ' S ACTION OF REFERRING VALUATION OF PIMPLE GURAV LAND TO DVO U/S 55A OF INCOME TAX ACT AS ILLEGAL , IGNORING THE AMENDMENT I N SECTION 55A(A) BY FINANCE ACT , 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/07/2012 WHEREIN WORDS ' IS LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE ' WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORDS 'IS AT VARIANCE WITH F AIR MARKET VALUE ' , WHICH IS P R OCEDURAL I N NATURE . 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED ALLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF EXEMPTION U/S 5 4F WITH REFERENCE TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN(L TCG) ON SALE OF SHIVAJI NAGAR LAND , WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONTEST ADDITIONAL CLAIM/EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN DOING SO IGNORED THE DECISION OF , HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HUMAYUN SULEMAN MERCHANT VS CCIT , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EXEMPTION U/S 54F I S ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED/UTILIZED TO PURCHASE/ CONSTRUCT NEW HOUSE BEFORE FURNISH I NG OF RETURN U/S 139(1) IS DEPOSITED I N CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME . 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 252 DAYS IN FILING THE C .O., OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD FILED THE CONDONATION PETITION AND AFFIDAV IT IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND SUBMITTED THAT DELAY WAS UN-INTENTIO NAL AND IT WAS NOT IN ANY WAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE A SSESSEE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OBJECT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER CAN BE HEARD ON MERITS. BOTH THE PAR TIES AGREED THAT IN THESE CASES, ISSUES ARE SIMILAR AND FACTS ARE COMM ON AND THEREFORE AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES ON FACTS, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND C.O., OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BEING HEARD TOGETH ER AND DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3 3. REGARDING THE REVENUES APPEAL IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL MEMO, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED TH AT THIS GROUND IS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE SO THAT THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO CONTEST THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM / EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HUMAYUN SULEMAN MERCHANT VS. CCIT REPORTED IN 3 87 ITR 421. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED T HE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. THE FACTS SUGGEST THA T THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WITH RE FERENCE TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND AT S.NO.72, MOUJE PIM PLE GURAV, PUNE, THIS GROUND WAS ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITHO UT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONTEST THIS ADDITIONAL CLAIM / EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF HUMAYUN SULEMAN MERCHANT (SUPRA). THAT FURTHER BEFORE US , THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS GROUND IS IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. HEARING THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND LEGAL PARAMETERS ON THIS ISS UE, GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER TWO GROUNDS, WE WOULD REFER TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EX TRACTED HEREUNDER BEING RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATING THIS APPEAL : 4 THIS GROUND RELATES TO FINDINGS OF AO WHEREIN AO H AS ADOPTED F.M.V. OF THE LAND AT MOUJE, PIMPLE GURAV AS ON 01. 04.1981 AT RS.2,55,358/- AGAINST THE F.M.V. VALUED BY REGISTER ED VALUER OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 57,02,000/-. BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O REFERRED THE MATTER TO D.V.O FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE F.M.V OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. SINCE THE D.V.O DID NOT SUBMIT THE REPORT MUCH BEFORE THE DATE, OF LIMITATION, THE A.O HAD TO DEVISE ANOTHER METHOD TO DETERMINE THE F.M.V. FOR T HIS PURPOSE, THE A.O TOOK THE HELP OF READY RECKONER RATE ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVT. AUTHORITIES, WHICH IS AVAILABLE SINCE 1989 AND NO SPECIFIC RATE IS GIVEN FOR THE YEAR 1981. HOWEVER, AS PER CIRCULAR NO.9 OF THE SAID RECKONER, A RATE OF 40% OF THE RATE FOR THE YEAR 1989 IS TO BE ADOPTED IN ORDER TO WORKOUT THE RATE AS ON 1.4.1981. ACCORDING, TO THE A.O, THE RATE FOR THE AREA IN WHICH IMPUGNED LA ND IS SITUATED, THE RATE IN 1989 WAS RS. 3,50,000/- PER HECTARE AND BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CIRCULAR 40% OF THE ABOVE RATE COMES TO RS. 1,40,000/- BEING 40% OF RS. 3,50,000/-. THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD 1 HECTARE AND 8.39 AREA. OF LAND, HENCE, APPLYING THE ABOVE RATE THE F .M.V OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 2,55,358/- AND ACCORDINGLY INDEXED COST OF ACQUISIT'ON WAS DETERMI NED AT RS. 6,32,000/- IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LAND WAS SOLD I.E. THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. HERE, IT IS PERTINENT TO HIGHL IGHT THAT THE A.O HAD TO FOLLOW THE READY RECKONER RATE BECAUSE HE DI D NOT FIND ANY SALE INSTANCE IN THE SAID LOCALITY IN THE YEAR 1981. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ENTIRE ISSUE REGARDIN G THE REFERENCE TO DVO U/S 55A OF I.T. ACT, THE SAME HAS BEEN HELD BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ILLEGAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUN D NO.3 IN IMPUGNED ORDER, HOWEVER, SINCE THE A.O HAS NOT TAKE N THE VALUE DETERMINED BY D.V.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT HAS ADOPTED THE RATE PRESCRIBED IN CIRCULAR 9 OF READY RECKONER 198 9, HENCE, THE ISSUE RELATING TO F.M.V NEEDS THROUGH ANALYSIS CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SEVERAL ERRORS POINTED OUT BY T HE APPELLANT AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE EVIDENCES, ON WHICH, RELIANCE I S PLACED BY THE A.O. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GOT T HE LAND VALUED THROUGH A REGISTERED VALUER SHRI VISHWAS GOPAL BHAT T, WHO'S REGISTRATION NO. IS CAT.I 2388 AND CAT.ED 1-949 63 5 OF 2000-2001 UNDER SECTION 34 AB OF THE W.T. ACT 1957. WHO MADE THE VALUATION OF THE LAND ON 23.04.2010, WHEREIN, F.M.V OF THE LA ND ON 0L.04.1981 WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 57,02,000/- CONSID ERING THE FOLLOWING FACTS: (A) IT IS A VACANT LAND SITUATED IN AGRICULTURE ZONE (B) CROPS WERE GROWN TILL THE YEAR 1978, NO CROPS GROWN THEREAFTER. (C) THE LAND FALL IN AN AREA INCLUDED IN TOWN PLANNING SCHEME. IN THE REGIONAL PLAN FOR THE PUNE DISTRICT REGION, SANCTIONED ON 17.05.1976 PREPARED BY THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTR A. (D) SOME CIVIC AMENITIES WERE AVAILABLE HEREBY SINCE PR IOR TO. 1981 (E) MEANS OF TRANSPORT INCLUDING BUS SERVICE OF S.T, P .M.T AND P.C.M.T WERE AVAILABLE SINCE PRIOR TO 1981. (F) FREEHOLD, FAIRLY LEVELED LAND. 5 (G) NO LAND REVENUE REALIZED IN THE YEAR 1981. (H) THE DISTANCE OF PUNE IS APPROXIMATELY 14 K.M. (I) THE SAID PROPERTY WAS ADJACENT TO THE THEN EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF PIMPIRI CHINCHWAD. III) HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE REPORT, WAS SUMMARILY REJECTED BY A.O. ONLY ON THE PLEA THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER WAS NOT AUTHORISED TO VALUE T HE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS PRESUMPTION OF AO IS ONLY B ASED ON THE FACT THAT IN THE VALUATION REPORT, THE NATURE O F THE LAND HAS BEEN SPECIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. HOWEVER, OTHER FEATURES OR SPECIFICATION GIVEN IN THE VALUATION REPORT HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE REJECTING IT. IN FACT, TH ERE ARE HUNDRED OF INSTANCES, WHERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND ON WHICH EVEN TODAY AGRIC ULTURAL ACTIVITIES ARE BEING CARRIED OUT AND NOT ONLY ON PA PER BUT IN REAL TERMS, THESE ARE AGRICULTURE LAND BUT DUE TO P ROXIMITY OF THE URBAN CENTRE, THESE LANDS MAY FETCH HANDSOME PR ICE, IF THE OWNER IS WILLING TO SELL. HENCE, THE VALUATION REPORT CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE LA ND UNDER DISCUSSION HAS BEEN SPECIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. (IV) THE REGISTERED VALUE' HAS GIVEN SEVERAL INSTAN CES VIZ, NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT AFTER 1978, PROXIMITY TO URBAN CENTRE EVEN IN THE YEAR 1981, NO TIFIED BY URBAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN THE YEAR 1976, AND AVA ILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION EVEN IN THE YEAR 1981, AMPLY PROV ES BEYOND DOUBT THAT, ALTHOUGH, THE SAID LAND WAS UNDER THE C ATEGORY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THAT IS ALSO BECAUSE THE APPE LLANT NEVER GOT IT CONVERTED INTO URBAN LAND, HOWEVER, THE POTE NTIAL OF THE LAND WAS MUCH MORE THAN WHAT THE AO HAS ASSUMED. DU RING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT EVEN BEFORE THE SALE OF THE LAND IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN FILING WEALTH TAX RETURN, WHEREIN, SHE HAD OFFERED THE ABOVE LAND AS DEEMED U RBAN LAND FOR WEALTH TAX IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(EA)(V) OF THE W.T. ACT 1957 AND PAID REQUISITE WEALTH TAX. NO DOUBT, THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED MUCH AFTER 104.1981, HOWEVE R, BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION REGARDING POTENTIAL OF T HE LAND, THIS CRUCIAL ASPECT NEEDS SPECIAL ATTENTION AND CANNOT B E IGNORED EASILY. REGARDING NO AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY CARRIED O UT, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF 7/12 EXTRA CTS RIGHT FROM 1978 CONFIRMING THE FACT THAT NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT OR HER FOREFATHER S ON THE SAID LAND SINCE 1978. (V) NO DOUBT, THE AO, HAS DETERMINED THE F.M.V. AFT ER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RATES PRESCRIBED IN READY R ECKONER, HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID RECKONER, IT IS SEE N THAT NO SPECIFICATION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR THE SPECIFIC PLOT OF LAND. THE RATES ARE GIVEN FOR A LARGE AREAS AND THAT IS ALSO FOR THE YEAR 1989. IT IS COMMONLY SEEN THAT EVEN IN A PARTICULAR AREA WHERE RATES AS PER READY RECKONER IS SAME HOWEVER I N REAL TERMS THE RATES VARY SUBSTANTIALLY AMONG THE PLOTS IN THE SAME AREA DEPENDING ON THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF PLOT, TITLE OF THE LAND WHETHER CLEAR. OR NOT PROXIMITY TO ROAD OR 6 TRANSPORTATION, LEVEL OF THE LAND AND AVAILABILITY OF CIVIC AMENITIES ETC. HENCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED A S A FOOL PROOF METHOD. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS RELEVANT TO BRING ON RECORD THE JUDGEMENT OF H'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF R.SAI BHARATI VS J. JAYALALITHA & OTHERS DECIDED ON 24.11.2003, WHEREIN H'BLE COURT HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AS TO WHAT EXTENT READY RECKONER RATES ARE JUSTIFIABLE TO DETE RMINE THE VALUE OF THE LAND. WHILE DEALING THE ISSUE, THE H'B LE COURT OPINED IT AS UNDER : THE GUIDELINE VALUE HAS REFERENCE ONLY IN THE CON TEXT OF SECTION 47-A OF THE INDIAN STAMP ACT (AS AMENDED BY TN ACT 24 OF 1967) WHICH PROVIDES FOR DEALING WITH INSTRUMENTS OF CONVEYANCE WHICH ARE UNDER VALUED. THE GUIDELINE VALUE IS A RATE FIXED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE STAMP ACT FOR PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE TRUE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y DISCLOSED IN AN INSTRUMENT REQUIRING PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. T HUS, THE GUIDELINE VALUE FIXED IS NOT FINAL BUT ONLY A PRIMA FACIE RATE PREVAILING IN AN AREA. IT I~ OPEN TO THE REGISTERIN G AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE PERSON SEEKING REGISTRATION TO PROVE TH E ACTUAL MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE AUTHORITIES CANNO T REGARD THE GUIDELINE VALUATION AS THE LAST WORD ON THE SUB JECT OF MARKET VALUE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THIS SCHEME OF THE ENACTMENT AND RULES CONTEMPLATE THAT GUIDELINE VALU E WILL ONLY AFFORD A PRIMA FACIE BASIS TO ASCERTAIN THE TR UE OR CORRECT MARKET VALUE UNDUE EMPHASIS IN THE GUIDELINE VALUE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE SETTING IN WHICH IT IS TO BE VIEWE D WILL OBSCURE THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION. IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE , THAT GUIDELINE VALUE IS NOT SACROSANCT AS URGED .... BUT ONLY A FA CTOR TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF IT ALL AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF AN ARE A IN WHICH THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED LIES. IN ANY EVENT, THEREFORE, IF FOR THE. PURPOSE OF STAMP ACT. GUIDELINE VALUE ALONE IS NOT A FACTOR TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY. SIMILAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY H'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASES OF JAWAJEE NAGNATHAN VS REVENUE DIVISI ONAL OFFICER, ADILABAD(1994)4, SUPREME COURT CASES 595, TRIBENI DEVI VS COLLECTOR OF RANCHI (1972)1 SCC. AND IN THE CASE OF PERIYAR AND PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD VS STATE OF KERALA(1991) 4 SCC 195. FURTHER, AN IDENTICAL FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY H'B LE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHA LINI VAMAN GODBOLE VS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SPECIA L UNIT SOLAPUR IN F. APPEAL NO.182 OF 1996 DECIDED ON 22.06.2009. (VI) IN NUTSHELL, IT CAN BE EASILY INFERRED THAT SO LELY ON THE BASIS LOF READY RECKONER RATES, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET CANNOT BE DETERMINED PARTICULARLY IN A SITUATION, WHERE NO SUCH RATE WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE CONCERNED YEAR I.E. THE YEAR 1981 IN IMPUGNED CASE. THE RATE WAS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR THE YEAR 1989 ONWARDS. IT IS ALSO WORTH TO MENTION THAT EVEN IN THE YEAR OF SALE THE READY RECKNOER RATE FOR THAT AREA WAS OF RS. 5 CRORE, HOW EVER, THE APPELLANT SOLD THE LAND ASSET FOR A CONSIDERATION O F RS. 14 CRORES. FURTHER, EVEN IF THE REGISTERED VALUER WAS NOT AUTH ORISED TO VALUE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION, HOWE VER, ON THIS TECHNICAL GROUND, THE VALUATION REPORT CAN NOT BE R EJECTED SUMMARILY BECAUSE AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION THE VALUER WAS REGISTERED UNDER THE W.T. ACT AND WAS PROFESSIONALLY ENOUGH CO MPETENT TO VALUE THE LAND UNDER DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, THE VALUATION REPORT MAY ALSO NOT BE CONSIDERED AS 100% SACROSANCT 7 BECAUSE THE EARLIER EXERCISE HAS BEEN BASED ON ESTI MATE ONLY, AND CONSIDERING THE SAME THERE IS PROBABILITY OF ERROR OF 20% IN THE VALUATION. HENCE, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION,. THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, MUCH WEIGHT IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE R EGISTERED VALUER REPORT, WHO AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SEVERAL FACTORS HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE. THE REGISTERED VALUER IS TECH NICCALLY COMPETENT TO DETERMINE THE VALUE, HOWEVER, THE AO IS STATUTOR ILY NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT THE VALUE AND IS EMPOWERED TO REJECT IT, IF IT IS FOUND TO BE TOTALLY ERRONEOUS, HOWEVER, IN INSTANT CASE, AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT TOO MANY ERRORS. HENCE , THE F.M.V. OF THE LAND IS ESTIMATED AT RS.45,00,000/- AS ON 1.4.1981 AGAINST THE VALUE OF S.57,02,000/- AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROBABILITY OF ERRORS AT 20% IN THE VALUATION DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADJUDICATED THE MATTER IN A BALANCED WAY WHEREBY THE V ALUATION REPORT SANCTITY HAS BEEN UPHELD BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT SUCH VALUATION REPORT IS ALSO N OT 100% SACROSANCT SINCE THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF ESTIMATE INVOLVED AND THEREFORE THERE IS A PROBABILITY OF ERROR OF 20% IN SUCH VALUE. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CORRECTLY ESTIMATED THE FA IR MARKET VALUE (F.M.V) OF THE LAND AT RS.45,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE V ALUE OF RS.57,02,000/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROBABILITY OF ERRORS AT 20% IN THE VALUATION REPORT DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THERE FORE THE RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH THESE GROUNDS A RE SUSTAINED. GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE GROUNDS FILED BY THE CROSS-OBJECTOR / ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 1. ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT , THE LEARNED CIT(A)-10, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADOPTING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 45,00 ,000/ - (INSTEAD OF RS . 57,02,000/- AS SO CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE); AS FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF LAND AT VILLAGE PIMPLE GURAV , N E AR PUNE; ADMEASURING 18,240 SQ. MTRS . THE LEARNED CIT(A)-10, PUNE OUGHT 8 TO HAV E ADOPTED THE FMV OF RS. 57,02,000/- AS SO DECIDED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER MR. VISHWAS BHAT, CONSIDERING FAC TS OF THE CASE. 2. ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT, THE LEARNED IT AUTHORIT IES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 50C OF THE ITA, 1961 FOR TRANSFER OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IN LAND AT S . NO . 241/2, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE AND REFERRING THE MATTER TO TH E VALUATION OFFICER . THE LEARNED I-T AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIAT ED TH A T ' LEASEHOLD R I GHTS OF LAND' DO NOT FALL IN THE AMBIT OF 'LAND' FOR THE PURPOS E OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ITA, 1961 AS SO HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS . 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T HE IS ARE NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.2 OF THE C.O. THEREFORE, GROU ND NO.2 OF THE C.O., IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. REGARDING GROUND NO.1 OF THE C.O., BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.3/PUN/20170, WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DETERMINING THE FMV OF THE LAND AT RS.45,00,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.57,02,000/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE C.O., OF THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO.03/PUN/2017 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE C.O. NO.01/PUN /2020 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- - ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) VICEPRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. YAMINI 9 / 012320 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-10, PUNE. PR.CIT-2, PUNE. '#$!% %&',)! !&' , / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ! // TRUE COPY // - ./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY )! !&' , / ITAT, PUNE.