The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji., Panaji V. Mrs. Matildes Lobo Rebeiro., Goa

ITA 378/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1232 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH S MUTAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: D E ROBINSON
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Fair market value

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 377 & 378 /P A N/201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 20 07 - 08 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI GOA. VS. 1) MR. GIL OSWALD RIBEIRO, ANG ELS RESORTS, CHOGUM ROAD, ALTO D E PORVORIM, BARDEZ, GOA. PAN NO. ABPPR 0215 E 2) MRS. MATILDES LOBO RIBEIRO, ANGELS RESORTS, CHOGUM ROAD, ALTO DE PORVORIM, BARDEZ, GOA. PAN NO. ADEPR 7731 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT S ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.E. ROBINSON ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR - DR DATE OF HEARING : 14 / 0 9 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 / 0 9 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANAJI - 1 IN APPEAL NOS. 166 & 158/PNJ/09 - 10, BOTH DATED 03/07/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE OF THE HUSBAND AND WIFE, TO WHOM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 APPLY. 2 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 2. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2 CRORES MADE TO THE OTHER NINE LEGAL HEIRS OF HIS FATHER JUSTIFIED IMPROVEMENT THE TITLE OF THE LAND, AND CONSEQUENTLY IN ALLOWING RS.2 CRORES AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT, THEREBY, REDUCING THE QUANTUM OF CAPITAL GAINS LI ABLE FOR TAX. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN REPLYING ON DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF R. M. ARUNACHALAM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 227 ITR 222 (SC), SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SAID CASE ARE AT VARIANCE TO T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,90,90,497/ - WITHOUT ARRIVING AT ANY INDEPENDENT FINDING AND IN IGNORING THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL SIDDHA RTHBHAI KARTHIKEYA SARABHAI VS. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 SC. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE YEAR 1977 AS YEAR OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL SALE DEED FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY WAS EXECUTED BEFORE THE C OMPETENT AUTHORITY IN THE YEAR 1985. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 DESPITE EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE PROPERLY WAS ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1985. 6. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HIM BY THE AO TO REBUT THE EVIDENCE GATHERED AGAINST HIM. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, WITHOUT GIVING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE IT, DEPRIVING THE REVENUE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK THE VELOCITY OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE CIT(A) AND PROVIDED TO USE THIS EVIDENCE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE ASSESSEE, EVEN OTHERWISE, FAILED TO FULFIL THE NECESSARY PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT BEFORE 1981. 9. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY ARISE DURING THE HEARING. 3 . SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI D.E. ROBINSON, ADV OCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES . 3 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 4 . IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF 2 CRORES MADE TO THE NINE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER JUSTIFIED IMPROVEMENT IN THE TITLE OF THE LAND. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INHERITED NEARLY 183000 SQ.MTS. OF LAND FROM HIS FATHER . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THIS PROPERTY FOR AN AMOUNT OF 5 CRORES AND HAD PAID 2 CRORES TO THE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS ON FAMILY SETTLEMENT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF 2 CRORES COULD NOT BE TREATED AS THE IMPROVEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TITLE OF THE L AND. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 5. IN REPLY, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HIS FATHER ON 01/12/19 77 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID 183000 SQ.MTS. OF LAND SITUATED AT SO CCORRO, GOA . HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 140 OF THE PAPER BOOK . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID 5 LAC TO HIS PARENTS AND AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PROVIDE SEVEN HOUSES , EACH HAVING 110 SQ.MTS. ALONG WITH APPURTENANT THERETO 300 SQ.MTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION T HAT CONSEQUENTLY IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE MEANTIME ON 31/01/1999, THE ASSESSEES FATHER EXPIRED AND INVENTORY PROCEEDINGS HA D BEEN INI TIATED . I N VIEW OF THE ARTICLE 2111 OF THE PORTUGUESE CIVIL CODE , T HE SAID PROPERTY AT SOCCORRO WAS ALSO INCLUDED AS THE PROPERTY OF THE DECEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE SHARE OF EACH OF THE MEMBERS BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1417 OF THE PORTUGUESE CIVIL LAW, THE HONBLE CIVIL J UDGE SENIOR DIVISION C COURT AT 4 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 MAPUSA HAD INCLUDED THE SAID PROPERTY IN THE INVENTORY PROCEEDINGS NO. 23/2000/C. THE ORDER WAS DELIVERED ON 27/10/2004, WHEREIN THE ASSETS OF THE DECEASED DR.JOSE OLAVO RIBEIRO , FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VALUED AT 39, 18,998/ - AND THE SAID PROPERTY WAS VALUED AT AROUND 11 LAC. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE SAID INVENTORY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND AS THE ASSESSEE WAS BOUND TO PAY NEARLY 13,95,377/ - REPRESENTING THE SHARES OF THE OTHER MEMBERS, WHICH AMOUNTED TO NEARLY 35% OF THE VALUE OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER . THE ASSESSEE PAID 2 CRORES TO THE LEGAL HEIRS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE NO . 11 OF HIS ORDER HAD ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT OF 2 CRORES TO THE LEGAL HEIRS AND HAD ALSO PERMITTED INDEXATION FROM 1999. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IT IS THE ONLY ISSUE ON THE INDEXATION MORE SPECIFICALLY THE YEAR RELATING TO WHICH THE INDEX IS TO BE GRAN TED, THE ISSUE WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PAYMENT OF 2 CRORES AND THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT OF 2 CRORES WENT TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT IN THE TITLE TO THE LAND , WAS NOT AN ISSUE O F DISPUTE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD NOT ADJUDICATED SUCH AN ISSUE , BUT IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF 2 CRORES DID GO TOWARDS THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE TITLE OF THE LAND. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL DID NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 6 . IN REPLY , DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE GROUND S NO. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL . 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF PAGE NO. 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER C L EARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER 5 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF 2 CRORES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS IN RESPECT OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE TITLE . ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE WHICH ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) . I N FACT, THIS IS AN ISSUE WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. THIS BEING SO, GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 OF THE REVENU E S APPEAL STAND DISMISSED AS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 8 . IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS. 4 TO 8, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 18075 SQ.MTS. OF LAND AT CALANGUTE FROM ONE MR. FINTON MARCEDO AND MRS. MARCEDO . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THIS LAND IN 1985 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 15 LAC. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD 11394 SQ.MTS. OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 10 CRORES . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE ACTUAL SALE WAS OF 14525 SQ.MTS. AND NEARLY 1920 SQ.MTS. HAD BEEN SOLD TO MUNDKARS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT 83/ - AND THE AREA WHICH H AS BEEN TRANSFERRED HAS BEEN ADOPTED AT 11394 SQ.MTS., WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED 18075 SQ.MTS. 9. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUATION HAS BEEN DONE ON 01/04/1981 AND THE AREA SOLD WAS ADOPTED AT 18075 SQ.MTS. AND HAD C ONSEQUENTLY, DELET ED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 10 . IN REPLY, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH A T THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 18075SQ.MTS. OF LAND FROM MR. & MRS. 6 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 MARCEDO . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO IN 1977 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 15 LAC. THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SHOWN AT PAGE NO. 91 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT TILL THE YEAR 198 2, THE COASTAL REGULATION ZONE HAD NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID PROPERTY BEING A BEACH SIDE PROPERTY HAD BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN 1985 , THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE SALE DEED AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 01/12/1977. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 AS THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT FROM 1977. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AN AFFIDAVIT FROM MR. FINTON MARCEDO HAD ALSO BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH HAD BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE SAME. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF 1977 HAD S ETTLED WITH THE MUNDKARS AND HAD TRANSFERRED 1920 SQ.MTS. OF LAND TO VARIOUS MUNDKARS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GR O UND TH A T THE SETTLEMENT WAS DONE BEFORE THE MUKUNDARS. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT IN THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF THE BALANCE LAND, THE AREA HAS BEEN SPECIFIED AS 11394 SQ.MTS WHEREAS IN THE SCHEDULE THEREOF, IT CLEARLY SHOWN 14794 SQ.MTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE SALE DEED, WHEREAS SCHEDULE TO THE SALE DEED CLEARLY SHOWED THE AREA. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL AREA SOLD /TRANSFERRED WAS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT SOME PART OF THE LAND HAD ALSO BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH AS TO WHEN THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN REGISTERED ONLY IN 1985, HOW THE VALUATION CAN BE DONE AS ON 01/04/1981, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN 7 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 POSSESSION RIGHT FROM 1977 AS PER THE AGREEMENT AND HE HAD THE IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND AND CONSEQUENTLY HE WAS ENTITLE D TO THE VALUATION AS ON 01/04/1981. IT WAS THEN PUT TO HIM THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 01/12/1977, CALUSE - 1 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT , THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO BUY 18000 SQ.MTS. OF LAND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED THEREIN AND A SUM OF 15 LAC PAYABLE TO THE VENDORS. IT WAS THEN PUT TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHEN THE CONDITIONS IN THE AGREEMENT WERE COMPLIED WITH AND THE AMOUNT OF 15 LAC PAID TO THE VENDORS . I T WAS FAIRLY SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RIGHT FROM 1977, THE COMPLIANCE TO THE AGREEMENT WAS IN PROCESS AND IT WAS COMPLETED IN 1985 AND THE CONSIDERATION OF 15 LAC HAD BEEN PAID IN 1985 WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED. IT WAS THEN FAIRLY AGREED BY THE AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ORDER TO SET ISSUES TO REST , THE ASSESSEE WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE TO BE FIXED AS OF 1985. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE VALUATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY BY APPLYING RATE OF 83 / - PER SQ.MTR . WAS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE OF VALUATION MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICATION BY APPLYING THE COMPARATIVE CASE METHO D OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES OF COMPARABLE SIZE. TO THIS SUBMISSION, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO OBJECTION. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ALSO BE DIRECTED TO VERIFY FROM THE MUTATION RECORDS AS TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL AR EA OF THE LAND SOLD , TO WHICH ALSO THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION. IT WAS THE FINAL SUBMISSION BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF 1920 SQ.MTS. OF LAND TO MUNDKARS , WHO ACQUIRED INTE REST IN THE SAID PROPERTY , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO TREAT THE SAME AS SALE AND COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. TO THIS ALSO, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION. 8 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 11 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. ADMITTEDLY, AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 01/12/1977 , THE ASSESSEE WOULD GET THE COMPLETE RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY ONLY WHEN HE HAS COMPLIED WITH T HE CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN . THE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH A ND COMPLETED IN ONLY 1985 WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED. CONSEQUENTLY, 1985 WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION. COMING TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION, THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN 83/ - AS COST OF LAND AND HE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE COST OF THE BUILDING IN THE SAID LAND NOR HE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS EXPENSES THAT HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPL Y ING WITH THE AGREEMENT DATED 01/12/1977 . THE ASSESSEE HAD A DOPTED APPROXIMATELY 400 SQ.MTR. 1) IN THESE CIRCUMSTA N CES, FOR THE PUR P OSE OF DETERMINING THE COST OF THE LAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL APPLY COMPARABLE CASE METHOD IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES OF COMPARABLE SIZE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO VALUE THE PROPERTY BY TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT 15 LAC AND ADDING TO THE SAME, THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL 1985 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH THE AGREEMENT DATED 01/12/1977 WHI CHEVER OF THE TWO IS HIGHER, THE SAME IS TO BE ADOPTED AS THE COST OF ACQUI SI TION OF THE SAID LAND AS ON 1985 FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE INDEXATION. IN THE EVENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BETWEEN 1977 TO 1983 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT DATED 01/12/1977, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ADOPT ESTIMATION . T HE COST OF THE BUILDING OF 400 SQ. MTS . WHICH IS THEREIN IN THE PROPERTY IS ALSO TO BE VALUED . IT MUST BE APPRECIATED THAT IN 1977 WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO THE CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN FIXED AT 15 LAC FOR 18000 SQ.MTS. IN 1985 WHICH IS NEARLY SEVEN YEARS LATER OBVIOUSLY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE INCREASED . 9 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 2) THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL VERIFY WITH THE MUTATION RECORDS TO VERIFY THE AREA OF THE LAND SOLD/TRANSFERRED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF 10 CRORES . W HATEVER THE MUTATION RECORDS SHOW AS HAVING BEEN TRANSFERRED IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AREA WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED UNDER THE SALE DEED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 10 CRORES. 3) AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 01/12/1977 THE EXISTENCE OF MUNDKARS ARE RECOGNIZED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED TO HAVE TR ANSFERRED 1920 SQ.MTS. OF LAND TO MUNDKARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COM PUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID AREA TO THE MUNDKARS APPLYING THE SAME RATE IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROVIDING ALL THE EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTIFICATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS AND THE VALUATION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREOF. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ISSUES IN GROUND NOS. 4 TO 8 OF THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE STAND RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICATION. 12 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY , THE 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 5 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 6 . VR/ - 10 ITA NO. 377 & 378/PAN/2015 COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 1) MR. GIL OSWALD RIBEIRO, ANGELS RESORTS, CHOGUM ROAD, ALTO DE PORVORIM, BARDEZ, GOA. 2) MRS. MATILDES LOBO RIBEIRO, ANGELS RESORTS, CHOGUM ROAD, ALTO DE PORVORIM, BARDEZ, GOA. 2 . THE REVENUE. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI GOA. 3 . THE CIT, PANAJI, GOA. 4 . THE CIT(A) , PANAJI - 1, GOA. 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI