DHARAM CHAND BOHARA, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 362/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5523 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Revised return
• Section: 50C; 234B; 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.362/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 . SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA, PROP. M/S. SIPANG INDUSTRIES, C/O SETH RATANGARH ROAD, FATEHPUR SHEKHAWATI, SIKAR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, SIKAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AGUPB 2531 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI FAZLUR RAHMAN (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI KAILASH MANGAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11 .01.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/01/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OR LD. CIT (A)-III, JAIPUR DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- (1) THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE IN THE ORDER U/S 147 /143(3) DATED 20.08.2010 ARE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE TH E SAME KINDLY BE DELETED. 2 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR. (2) RS. 1,31,894/- : THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW A S WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN AT RS. 33,87,989/- AS AGAINST RS. 32,56,095/- DECLARED BY ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1984 AT RS. 4,84,466/ AS A GAINST RS. 3,52,572/- DECLARED. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE LD. AO AND CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. (3) THE LD. AO FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. THE A PPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES ITS LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. TH E INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. THE APPEAL FILED IS DELAYED BY 50 DAYS. THE ASS ESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NO DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THAT SO FAR AS THE CORRECT DATE OF RECEIPT IS CON CERNED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED, IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAME WAS NEVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR ANYBODY AUTHORIZED BY HIM TO RECEIVE THE ORDER IN THIS BEHALF. THIS FACT CAN BE GOT VERIFIED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT (A)-III, JAIPUR ALSO. THE PER SON WHO GOT THE ORDER LEFT THE PAPERS AT THE PLACE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEN ON LY THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF THE ORDER AND TOOK ACTION TO FILE THE AP PEAL. THE DATE MENTIONED IN FORM-36 COLUMN NO. 9 IS THE CORRECT DA TE WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE ORDER. IN RESPECT OF ABOVE CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED AFFIDAVIT DULY NOTARIZED BY NOTARY PUBLIC. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATTER, FOR THE INTER EST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, GROUND NO. 1 IS NOT PRES SED BY THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT P RESSED. 3 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR. GROUND NO. 2 : 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.07.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,35,580/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 19.12.2007 ON THE DECLARED INCOME. LATER ON THE RET URN WAS REVISED ON 25.07.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,66,111/-. SUBSEQUEN TLY IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED HIS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN BY OVER STATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION. IN THE REVISED RETURN ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS 36,10,028/- BY ADOPTING THE DLC RATE AS ON 01.04.1993 AND THEN IND EXING THE COST. THE INDEXING OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF MARKET RATE OF PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 INSTEAD OF RATE AS ON 01.04.1993. TH E ASSESSEE HAD TRUE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,87,989/- AS AGAINS T DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,30,533/-. THUS THE ASSESSED HAD SUPPRESSED HIS INCOME BY RS. 32,57,456/- (33,87,989- 1,30,533). THE AO ACCORDINGLY ISSUED N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT ON 03.04.2009 AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR BELIEF THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 32,57,456/- HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.06.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 33,91,673/- INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 32,56,095/-. IN THE MEANWHILE MATTER WAS TRANSFERRED TO ACIT SIKAR AS THE DECLARED INCOME WAS MORE THAN RS 5 LACS. 4.1. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME HAD ADOPTED THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 37,4 0,561/- IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, INDE XED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS ADOPTED 4 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR. BY THE ASSSESSEE AT RS. 4,84,466/- BY ADOPTING MARK ET RATE AS ON 01.04.1981 T RS. 5500/- PER BIGHA. AS MENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECOR DED BY THE AO, MARKET RATE OF THE SOLD PROPERTY FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR (FY 2006-07) WA S RS. 3,52,572/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INDEXED COST OF SOLD PROPE RTY MAY NOT BE ADOPTED AT RS. 3,52,572/- AS AGAINST RS. 4,84,466/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED VIDE LETTER DATED 20.08.2010 THAT DLC RATE OF THE S OLD PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1993 WAS RS. 1 LAC PER BIGHA AND ON THAT BASIS RATE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 WOULD BE RS. 17,825/- PER BIGHA. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT L OOKING TO THE ABOVE FACT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 5500/- PER BIGH A ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED. THE ARGUMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS C ONSIDERED BUT IT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AS IT WOULD LEAD TO INCORRECT MARKET RATE AS ON 01.04.1981. THE FACT THAT ASSESSEES OWN ASSESSMENT OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY AT RS. 5500/- PER BIGHA SHOWS THAT ARGUMENT GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IN THIS REGAR D IS NOT CORRECT. THE SOLD PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE FATHER OF ASSESSEE ON 27.09.19 65 T THE RATE OF RS. 55.88 PER BIGHA AND ON THAT BASIS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 WOULD BE RS. 4002.65 PER BIGHA. THE AO ARRIVED AT THIS V ALUE WHILE RECORDING REASONS, TAKING YEARLY APPRECIATION AT THE COMPOUND APPRECIATION RA TE OF 30.6%. THUS VALUE OF 16.972 BIGHA OF THE SOLD LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS RS. 67, 932/- AND THE INDEXED COST FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR F.Y. 2006-07 WOULD BE RS. 3,52,572/- (67932 X 519/100) AND HENCE CAPITAL GAIN IS COMPUTED BY ADOPTING INDEXED COST O F ACQUISITION AT RS. 3,52,572/- AS 5 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR. AGAINST RS. 4,84,466/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND ADDED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 33,87,989/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT (A), WHO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 02.3 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LD. AR BUT DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM. DETERMINATION OF THE FMV IS NOTHING BUT AN ESTIMATION WHICH HAS TO BE BASED ON SOME MATERIAL AND LOGIC. S INCE IN THIS CASE, THE COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE OR DLC RATE AS ON 01.04.19 81 IS NOT AVAILABLE, THE FMV HAS TO BE ESTIMATED OTHERWISE. THE REVERSE WORKING OF COST INFLATION INDEX FROM 1993 TO 1981 IS NOT A VERY SOU ND AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD SINCE THE COST OF PROPERTY DOES NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE AS PER COST INFLATION INDEX NOTIFIED BY CBDT. INDEXATION W AS ALLOWED ONLY TO NEUTRALIZE THE GENERAL INFLATION. IT DOES NOT REFL ECT THE INCREASE IN THE COST OF PROPERTY. AO HAS ALLOWED COMPOUND APPRECIATION O F 30.6% WHICH IS MORE THAN REASONABLE. HENCE, THE COST OF PROPERTY A S ON 01.04.1981 ADOPTED BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THE GROUND RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 6.1. THE LD. A/R FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILE D WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS UNDER :- 1.1 THE ONLY DISPUTE APPEARS TO BE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS WHAT SHOULD BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) ON 01.04.1981 VIZ. @ RS.550 0 PER BIGHA AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT OR RS.4002/65 PER BIGHA AS ADOPTED BY THE LD. AO. DETERMINATION OF THE FMV IS NOTHING BUT AN ESTIMATION WHICH HAS T O BE BASED ON SOME MATERIAL. THE MATERIAL COULD BE IN THE SHAPE OF AN EXPERT OPI NION OR COMPARABLE CASE/S BROUGHT BY ANY OF THE PARTY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RES PECTIVE CONTENTIONS HOWEVER, SUCH MATERIAL IN ABSENCE OF THE OTHER LOGICAL WAY T O MAKE FAIR ESTIMATION BASED ON COMPARABLE CASES. 6 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR. 1.2 THE LD. AO IN HIS WISDOM CONSIDERED THE PROPERTY PU RCHASED BY HIS FATHER ON 27.09.1965 @ RS.55/88 PER BIGHA AND ON THAT BASI S HE COMPUTED FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.4,002/65 PER BIGHA I.E. RS.67,932/ - AND CONSIDERING THE COMPOUND APPRECIATION RATE OF 30.6%. HOWEVER, THE M ETHOD OF ESTIMATION OF THE ADOPTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASON THAT IN THAT CASE THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND NEEDL ESS TO SAY THE CONSIDERATION AT WHICH THE FATHER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY CANNOT B E SAID TO BE THE PREVAILING MARKET BEING INFLUENCED BY OTHER VARIOUS REASONS. F OR A FAIR ESTIMATION INDEPENDENT MATERIAL IS ALWAYS PREFERRED AND THEREF ORE, TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT AND THIRD PARTIES COULD BE MORE RELIABL E. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND, CONSIDERED DLC RATES WHICH ARE MUCH PREFERRED AS AGAINST THE FATHER-SON TRANSACTION CITED BY THE LD. AO. 1.3 THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND, CONSIDERED AN EXA MPLE OF THE YEAR 1993 WHEN THE DLC RATE WAS RS.1 LAC PER BIGHA AND AGAIN ADOPTED THE COST INFLATION INDEX (CII) NOTIFIED BY THE CBDT. A REVERSE WORKING WAS MADE. THIS WAY, THE FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.17,825 PER BIGHA HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT, ON A VERY FAIR SIDE BEING CONSERVATIVE A ND IN VIEW OF PRACTICAL CONDITIONS, REDUCED THE SAME DRASTICALLY TO A MERE RS.5500 PER BIGHA. IF, THIS IS COMPARED WITH THE ESTIMATION OF THE LD. AO OF RS.40 02/65 PER BIGHA, THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE AND IN THE MATTER OF ESTIMATION VAR IATION TO THIS EXTENT, IS INDEED POSSIBLE. SUCH DIFFERENCE, IS WITHIN THE TOLERANCE LIMIT. THUS, IN ANY CASE, THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS MORE LOGICAL, REASONABLE AND FAIR. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE CII IS BEING NOTIFIED BY THE CBDT ITSELF EVERY YEAR THROUGH NOTIFICATIONS AND SU CH INDEX HAS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF THE VERY CAPITAL GAIN ONLY THEREFORE, IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT ANY WORKING BASED THEREON (WHETHER FORWARD OR REVERSE) IS NOT VERY SOUND AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD SINCE THE COST OF PROPE RTY DOES NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE AS PER CII NOTIFIED BY CBDT AND THAT INDEX ATION WAS ALLOWED ONLY TO NEUTRALIZE THE GENERAL INFLATION. IT DOES NOT REFLE CT THE INCREASE IN THE COST OF THE PROPERTY. NO DOUBT SUCH INDEXATION WAS ALLOWED ONLY WITH A VI EW TO NEUTRALIZE THE GENERAL INFLATION AND CII MIGHT NOT REFLECT SOL ELY INCREASE/DECREASE IN THE COST OF THE PROPERTY BUT ONCE THE LEGISLATURE ITSEL F VIDE 2 ND PROVISO TO S.48 R/W. EXPLN. (III) HAS ALSO MADE IT MANDATORY TO CONSIDER THE CII BEING PUBLISHED BY THE CBDT EVERY YEAR, TO WORK OUT THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N WHILE COMPUTING LTCG, HENCE THERE APPEARS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON AT ALL TO REJECT SUCH CII WHILE COMPUTING LTCG EVEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING F MV AS ON 01.04.1981. SUCH A BASIS HAVING THE LEGISLATION SANCTION AND NO TIFIED BY CBDT, IS THUS THE BEST MATERIAL/BASIS FOR ESTIMATION AS ON 1.4.1981. 7 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR. 2.2. THE OTHER FACTS ARE NOT UNDER DISPUTE. THUS, THERE APPEARS NO CONVINCING REASON FROM THE CIT(A) TO REJECT THE BASIS OF ESTIM ATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME WHILE AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO THOUGH HE FOUND HIS BASIS OF ESTIMATION TO BE MORE THAN RE ASONABLE BUT AT THE SAME TIME ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS TO WHAT MADE H IM TO FOUND IT REASONABLE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THIS COMPOUND APPRECIATION RATE OF 30.6% HAS GOT ANYTHING TO DO DIRECTLY WITH THE INCR EASE OR DECREASE OF THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY/REAL ESTATE. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION KINDLY BE DELETED. 6.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF L D. CIT (A) BE CONFIRMED. 6.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR VIEW, CAPITAL GAIN IS REQUIRED TO BE CALCULATED IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET BY CALCULATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS R EQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED AS WOULD HAVE BEEN PREVAILED AS ON 01.04.1981 AND THEREAFTER THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN WITH A VIEW TO CALCULATE THE COST OF ACQUI SITION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER ON 27.09.1965 @ RS. 55.88 PER BIGHA AND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE @ RS. 5500/- PER BIGHA . THE ASSESSEE HAS CALCULATED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 @ RS. 5500/- PER B IGHA AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DLC RATE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1993, WHEREAS THE AO HAS APPLIED THE RATE OF RS. 4002.65 PER BIGHA BY GIVING THE COMPOUNDED A PPRECIATION OF 30.6% ON THE 8 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR. ORIGINAL COST OF ACQUISITION. AS PER EXPLANATION T O SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS UNDER :- EXPLANATION .FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, ( I ) FOREIGN CURRENCY 48 AND INDIAN CURRENCY 48 SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM IN SECTION 2 OF THE F OREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT, 1973 (46 OF 1973); ( II ) THE CONVERSION OF INDIAN CURRENCY INTO FOREIGN CU RRENCY AND THE RECONVERSION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY INTO INDIAN CURREN CY SHALL BE AT THE RATE OF EXCHANGE PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF; ( III ) INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION MEANS AN AMOUNT WHI CH BEARS TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION THE SAME PROPORTION AS COST INFLATIO N INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED BEARS TO THE COST INFLATIO N INDEX FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1981, WHICHEVER IS LATER; ( IV ) INDEXED COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT MEANS AN AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT THE SAME PROPORTION AS COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED BEARS TO THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE IMPROVEMENT TO THE ASSET TOOK PLA CE; 49 [( V ) COST INFLATION INDEX, IN RELATION TO A PREVIOUS YEAR, MEANS SUCH INDEX AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO SEV ENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF AVERAGE RISE IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN NON-MANUAL EMPLOYEES FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR TO SUCH PRE VIOUS YEAR, BY NOTIFICATION 50 IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY, IN THIS BEHALF.]] IF WE APPLY THE DEFINITION TO THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE WILL FIND THAT THE COST INFLATION INDEX HAS BEEN DULY AP PLIED BY THE AO ON THE INITIAL COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS. SINCE THE INITIAL C OST OF ACQUISITION IS AVAILABLE, IN OUR VIEW, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE APPRECIATED COMPOUND ED COST OF APPRECIATION @ 30.6% 9 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR. IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) I S UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/01/2 016. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK YFYR DQEKJ (T.R. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22/01/2016 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA, SIKAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE, SIKAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 362/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 10 ITA NO 362/JP/2013 A.Y 2007-08 SHRI DHARAM CHAND BOHARA VS. DCIT SIKAR.