Rajendra T. Katariya, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 362/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2706 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH D AKHADE
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , !, # $ BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ITA NO.362/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI RAJENDRA T. KATARIYA (HUF), TELI GALLI, SHRIGONDA, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. PAN : AAMHR1552E . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4, AHMEDNAGAR. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.363/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI CHANDRAKANT T. KATARIYA (HUF), TELI GALLI, SHRIGONDA, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. PAN : AACHC9250L . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4, AHMEDNAGAR. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.364/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI VIJAY T. KATARIYA (HUF), TELI GALLI, SHRIGONDA, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. PAN : AAFHV8570D . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4, AHMEDNAGAR. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.365/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SAU VAIJAYANTI CHANDRAKANT KATARIYA, TELI GALLI, SHRIGONDA, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. PAN : AYIPK9813B . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4, AHMEDNAGAR. . RESPONDENT 2 ITA NO.366/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI JAWAHAR T. KATARIYA (HUF), TELI GALLI, SHRIGONDA, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. PAN : AAFHJ0351L . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4, AHMEDNAGAR. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.371/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI SURENDRA T. KATARIYA (HUF), TELI GALLI, SHRIGONDA, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. PAN : AASHS5554D . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4, AHMEDNAGAR. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHESH D. AKHADE / DATE OF HEARING : 10.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.02.2016 % / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE ABOVE CAPTIONED BUNCH OF APPEALS IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARISES FROM THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, P UNE DATED 10.12.2013 RELATING TO SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PASSED UND ER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND INVOL VES IDENTICAL ISSUE. THEREFORE ALL THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AN D ADJUDICATED BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON AND IDENTICAL IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE SHALL TAKE-UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.366/PN/2014 IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAWAHAR T. KATARIYA (HUF) AS THE LEAD CASE. 3 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE LEARNED A.O. IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND SITUATED AT GAT NO. 2290 & 2293, SHRIGONDA, AHMEDNAGAR MADE DURING THE YEAR. 2] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FAI R MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS RS.13,800/- PER HECTARE A S ESTIMATED BY THE LEARNED A.O. AS AGAINST THE VALUE OF RS.65,000/- PE R HECTARE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE CAPITA L GAINS ON SALE OF THE SAID LAND. 3] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE W ERE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER AND H ENCE, THE VALUATION OF LAND ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED A.O. ON THE BASIS OF COMP ARABLE SALE INSTANCES OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR WAS T O BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SAL E OF LAND. 4] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE BA SIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER WHO HAD VALUED THE LAND ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE LOCATIONAL AND OTHER ADVANTAGES RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE'S LAND AND HENCE , THE REJECTION OF THE MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIF IED ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 5] THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED A.O. WAS NOT COMPAR ABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE'S LAND AND HENCE, THE VALUATION OF RS.13,800/- PER HECTARE WAS NOT CORRECT AND THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED. 6] WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 ADOP TED BY THE LEARNED A.O. IS VERY LOW AND CONSIDERING THE LOCATIONAL AND OTHE R ADVANTAGES OF THE ASSESSEE'S LAND, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 MAY BE TAKEN AT A MUCH HIGHER FIGURE. 7] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE DEDU CTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.7, 90,000/- INCURRED ON BOREWELL AND OTHER FACILITIES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 8] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. GROUND NOS.1 TO 6 INVOLVES A COMMON ISSUE NAMELY ; DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ON ITS SA LE. 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT SHRIGONDA, DIST. AHME DNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA ALONG WITH FIVE CO-OWNERS WHO ARE APPELLANTS HEREIN INCLU DING PRESENT ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LAND WAS S OLD ON 01.11.2007 FOR 4 RS.1,00,35,000/- AND SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS A CO-OWNER THEREIN WAS RS.16,72,500/-. AGAINST THE SALE CONSI DERATION RECEIVED, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.19,33,640/- AS COS T OF ACQUISITION. ACCORDINGLY, HE DECLARED A NET CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.2 ,61,140/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE VALUATION REPORT FROM A REGISTERED VALUER FOR THE S AID LAND. AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 26.06.2008, FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE IMPUGNED LAND UNDER SALE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.21,05,600/-. DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED VALUATION R EPORT DATED 07.12.2010 CITING THAT THE FIRST VALUATION REPORT SUFFERED FROM CERTA IN DEFECTS. ACCORDING TO THE REVISED VALUATION REPORT, THE COST OF ACQUISITION W AS DETERMINED AT RS.9,77,600/- AND CHARGEABLE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HA NDS OF EACH CO-OWNER WAS COMPUTED AT RS.5,99,737/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ECLINED TO ACCEPT THE VALUATION REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA ON THE PREMISE THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS RELIED UPON THE COMPARABLE SA LE INSTANCES IN RESPECT OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AS OPPOSED TO THE PRESENT CAS E WHERE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SUBJECT-MATTER OF CONSIDERATION. THE COST OF ACQUI SITION OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OBTAINED COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES FROM THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ADJACENT TO THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. TABULATED DATA IN THIS REGARD AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PA RA 17 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER :- THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SUCH SALE INSTANCES ARE A S UNDER :- SR. NO. NEW GUT NO. OLD GUT NO. DATE OF SALE/DATE OF REGN. NAME OF PURCHASER. S/SHRI AREA (H-R) CONSIDERATION (RS.) RATE PER HECTOR (RS.) 1. 2249 2202 15/04/1981 29/10/1981 BALU DAGADU PUND. 00.80 4,000/- 5,000/- 2. 2276 2228 03/02/1982 17/12/1983 SMT. DRAUPADABAI ARJUNRAO KALE. 02.84 7,000/- 2,465/- 3. 2331 2282 16/07/1981 05/08/1981 1. SAYYED GULAB L. 2. JAITUNBI MOHD. HANIF 02.50 12,000/- 4,800/- 4. 2335 2286 18/11/1981 14/11/1983 HAUSRAO KISANRAO VADAVKAR. 01.60 17,000/- 10,625/- 5. 2351 2297 30/03/1982 06/02/1984 MACHHINDRANATH BABURAO JAGTAP. 02.40 20,000/- 8,333/- 5 6. ON PERUSAL OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE AS TABULATE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED T HAT SALES RATE VARIED FROM RS.2,465/- PER HECTARE TO RS.10,625/- HECTARE DURIN G THE YEAR 1981. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE HIGHEST RATE OF RS.10 ,625/- PER HECTARE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER ENHANCED THIS RA TE BY ANOTHER 30% TO FACTOR IN THE LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGES ASSOCIATED TO THE IMPU GNED LAND TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEAR HIGHWAY WHEREAS COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES WERE IN THE INTERIOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER JUSTIFIED ENHANCEMENT RATE OF 30% TOWARDS LOCATIONAL ADVANTAG E IN LINE WITH THE APPROACH OF THE VALUER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGA RD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS ESTIMATED THE FAIR VALUE OF COST OF ACQUISITIO N AT RS.13,800/- PER HECTARE AFTER GRANTING ALLOWANCE FOR THE LOCATIONAL PREMIUM AS AGAINST RS.65,000/- PER HECTARE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED SHARE OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE AT RS.15,12,313/- AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAXATION. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE MOVED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ERROR IN DISREGARDING THE APPROVED VALUERS REPORT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN THE M UNICIPAL LIMITS OF SHRIGONDA. THE LAND SOLD IN CONSIDERATION HAD DISTINCT ADVANTA GE IN AS MUCH AS THE LARGE PORTION OF LAND IS HAVING ROAD FRONTAGE AND IT IS S ITUATED ON BEED MUMBAI STATE HIGHWAY. LAND HAS TWO SIDE ROAD APPROACHES. SINCE SITUATED ON THE ROAD FRONT, IT HAS GOOD COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL AS IT WAS V ERY CLOSE TO ALL CIVIC AMENITIES WITHIN VERY REASONABLE DISTANCE. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT ALTHOUGH THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS HELD AS AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE SAME HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE CONVERTED INTO NON-AGR ICULTURAL USE. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, REJECTED THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS PUT-FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- 2.14 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARGU MENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY HIM. THE APPELLANT'S MAIN AR GUMENT IS THAT THE LEARNED AO 6 IS NOT COMPETENT TO CARRY OUT THE VALUATION OF LAND WHEN THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER IS AVAILABLE. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE APPELL ANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF RAJENDRA H SETH VS ACIT ITAT (AHM). I HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE DECISION. IN THIS CASE, THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ACT ION OF THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THE AO HAS TAKEN DIFFERENT VALUATION WITHOUT OBT AINING THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE DVO ESPECIALLY WHEN APPELLANT'S VALUATION REPOR T IS PREPARED BY THE TECHNICAL PERSON. 2.15 IN MY VIEW, APPARENTLY, THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT DO ES NOT CONSIDER VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE SC IN THE C ASE OF AMIYA BALA PAUL VS CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407 (SC) IN WHICH THE SC HAS HELD TH AT DVO'S REPORT HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE. SIMILARLY, ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SMT PREM KUMARI (1984) 146 ITR 191 (ALL) HAS HELD THAT DVO'S REPORT IS IN THE NATURE OF ASSISTANCE. THE SAME CAN BE REJECTED FOR THE VALID REASONS. 2.16 BASED ON THIS, IT CAN BE STATED THAT WHILE PAS SING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO PERFORMS JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND TAKES INTO AC COUNT INFORMATION DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM, WHICH WOULD ALSO INC LUDE THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY A TECHNICAL PERSON I.E. REGISTERED VALUER OR DVO. TH E AO IS NEITHER A TECHNICAL PERSON OR IS EXPECTED TO PERFORM TECHNICAL FUNCTION HOWEVER, AS HELD BY THE COURTS IN THE JUDGEMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE LEARNED AO I S EMPOWERED TO REJECT THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER OR DVO FOR THE VALI D REASONS, HE IS NOT EXPECTED TO BLINDLY FOLLOW THE REPORT OF THE VALUER. 2.17 COMING TO THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE REPORT OF TH E APPELLANT'S REGISTERED VALUER. I FIND THAT THE VALUATION HAS BEEN DONE ACCORDING T O NA LAND WHERE THE LAND HAS BEEN AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS AGAINST THIS THE SALE I NSTANCES OBTAINED BY LEARNED AO ARC OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. SECONDLY, THE SALE IN STANCE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER IS DATED 03.05 1983 AS AGAINST THE VALUATION REQUIRED TO BE DONE ON 1.4.1981 HE HAS DISCOUNTED VALUE @ 500 FOR BOTH THESE FACTOR S I CONSIDER VALUATION OF THE APPELLANT'S VALUER ERRONEOUS BECAUSE CLOSER COMPARA BLE SALE INSTANCES ARC AVAILABLE. AS AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED AO'S INSTAN CES ARE CLOSER TO 01.04.1981. THIRDLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I FIND THAT THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED AO IS THE SAME: I.E. COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES. THEREFORE, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMIN ED IS ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE COMPARABLE SALE RATE COMPARABLE WITH THE APPEL LANT'S SALE. 2.18 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED AO IS MUCH CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL VALUE AS THE COMPARABLE SALE I NSTANCES ARE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLOSE TO THE APPELLANT'S PLOT OF LAND AND CLOSER TO 01.04.1981. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AO HAS ADOPTED HIGHEST RATE OF THE COMPARABLE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS 10,625, WHICH IS FURTHER ENHANCED BY 30% TO ADOPT SALE RATE OF RS 13,800. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, THE ENHANCED RATE OF HIGHEST COMPARATIVE SALE RATE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGES MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT FO R HIS LAND. I ALSO FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MERELY RELIED ON THE REGISTERED VALUE R'S REPORT AND HAS ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED AO IS NOT A TECHNICAL PERSON HOWEVER, O N MERITS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ARGUED AS TO WHY RATE ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED AO CAN NOT BE ADOPTED AS A COMPARABLE INSTANCE. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT ALSO N OT SUBMITTED ANY ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CORRECT ADJUSTMENT, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, SHOULD BE MADE TO THE SALE RATE ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED AO. IN THESE FACT S, I FIND NO ERROR IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING VALUATION RATE OF RS.13,800/-. 8. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ACTIO N OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE KNOCKED THE DOOR OF THE TRIBUNAL. 7 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS PUT-FORTH BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUB MITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE IN PERSPECTIVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ADOPTI NG THE VALUATION OF RS.65,000/- PER HECTARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMIN ATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 IS BACKED BY VALUATI ON REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER. HE ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO LAYOUT PLAN A NNEXED AT PAGE NO.15 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LAND IN CONSIDE RATION WAS BLESSED WITH DISTINCT LOCATIONAL AND OTHER ADVANTAGES I.E. TWO S IDE ROAD FRONTAGE AS COMPARED TO THE COMPARABLE CASES ADOPTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE IN THE INTERIOR PART WITHOUT ACCESS TO ROAD ALBEIT SITUATED IN THE SAME AREA. HE ACCORDINGLY PLEADED FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF O F THE REVENUE, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE REVENUE AFTER OBJECTIVE CONS IDERATION OF FACTS. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. T HE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARK ET VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF ITS COST OF ACQUISITION AND CONSEQUENTIAL CAPITAL GAINS THEREON ON ITS TRANSFER . WE NOTE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS FROM THE FIRST APPELLAT E ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE VALUATION REPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COST OF ACQUISITION ADOPTED BY HIM WHICH IN TURN HAS RELIED UPON A SINGULAR COM PARABLE SALE INSTANCE AND THAT TOO IN RESPECT OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. WE A RE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISCARDED TH E VALUATION REPORT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER BROUGHT ON RECORD TANGIBLE COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES OF SIMILAR LANDS SITUATED IN THE SAME AREA AND HAS ADOPTED THE HIGHEST CONSIDERATION TO THE CO MPLETE ADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF COST O F ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER ADJU STED THE FAIR VALUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION BY ESTIMATED 30% PREMIUM IN LINE WIT H THE SIMILAR ESTIMATION 8 ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER TO FACTOR IN THE L OCATIONAL ADVANTAGES AND ROAD FRONTAGE AVAILABILITY, ETC.. WE THEREFORE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT A COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS.10,625/- PER HECTARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01 .04.1981 ON OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AS DISCERNIBLE FROM RECORD. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT PREMIUM OF 40% THEREON TOWARDS LOCATIONAL AND OTHER ADVANTAGES I.E. TWO SIDES ROAD FRONTAGE WOULD BE EQUITABLE AND WOULD ME ET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-COMPUTE THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN TERMS OF DIRECTION ABOVE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO S.1 TO 6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CONCERNING THE ISSUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO.7 OF THE ASSESSES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D AS NOT PRESSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.366/PN/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. SINCE THE ISSUES IN ALL OTHER REMAINING APPEALS I.E. ITA NO.362 TO 365/PN/2004 AND ITA NO.371/PN/2014 ARE IDENTICAL TO APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.366/PN/2014, OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.366/P N/2014 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS IN ALL OTHER REMAINING APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE A SSESSEES I.E. ITA NO.362 TO 365/PN/2004 AND ITA NO.371/PN/2014. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE REMAINING APPEALS OF THE RES PECTIVE ASSESSEES IN ITA NO.362 TO 365/PN/2004 AND ITA NO.371/PN/2014 ARE AL SO PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. RESULTANTLY, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE R ESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. 9 % & '() *)' / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. %+ / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE