Vijay Gulabdas Broker, Pune V. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 453/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2340 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2020
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.453/PUN.2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI VIJAY GULABDAS BROKER, 99, NATIONAL CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY, BANER ROAD, PUNE 411 007. PAN : AAVPB4896Q ..APPELLANT. VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 5, PUNE. ..RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK. REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE. / ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM. 1. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 3, PU NE DATED 23.12.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE HON. CIT(A) AND THE AO ERRED : I. IN HOLDING THAT SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 10,38,00 , 000 ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN PLACE OF RS . 8 , 75 , 48,670 MENTIONED I N SALE DEED DT 11 . 01 . 2007 WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN . / DATE OF HEARING : 25.11.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.11.2020 2 II. IN ARBITRARILY BIFURCATING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS . 21 , 01,00 , 000 MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED TOWARDS LAND RS . 20 , 76 , 00 , 000 AND BUILDING RS.25,00 , 000 . III. IN HOLDING THAT THE LAND VALUE OF RS.20,76 , 00 , 000 ESTIMATED IN THE ASST ORDER SHOULD BE SUBDIVIDED BETWEEN THE APPELLA NT AND HIS BROTHER IN THE RATIO OF 50:50. IV. IN ADDING TO THE ASSESSEE ' S DECLARED INCOME 1 , 63,51,330 AS UNDISCLOSED SALE CONSIDERATION, ACCRUED TO THE ASSE SSEE ON EXECUTION TO THE SALE DEED DATED 11/01/2007 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTED WITH HIS SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION TO HIS BROTHER BY WAY OF APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT PLEADS THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IS N OT JUSTIFIED , HAD NO BASIS IN FACT OR LAW AND WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT OF HIS INCOME WHEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 8 , 75 , 48 , 670 AND H I S BROTHER RS . 12,25,51 , 330 TOWARDS THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES IN THE PROPERTY WERE MENTIO NED IN THE SALE DEED AND DULY DECLARED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ONE ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PLOT AS RS.10 ,38,000/- IN PLACE OF RS.8,75,48,670 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE CONSID ERATION AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE V ALUE AS PER THE READY RECKONER RATE ADOPTED / ASSESSED BY THE STATE GOVER NMENT. THE APPELLANT PLEADS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION COULD NOT BE SUB STITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 3. THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RE TURN OF INCOME ON 30 TH JULY 2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME RS.L,32,78,440/-, THIS INCLUDE D LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AT MUMBAI AT RS.1,3 1,15,252/-. THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE LAND WAS RS.8,75,48,670/- A GAINST WHICH INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION RS.85,71,140/- WAS CLAIMED BASED ON VALUE OF LAND CERTIFIED BY REGISTERED VALUERS M/S. S. K. GODBOLE A ND ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI AT RS.16,51,472/- ON 01.04.1981. ON 05.1 2.1958 THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER SHRI VINOD BROKER JOINTLY ACQUIRED LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IN LAND ADMEASURING 807.50 SQ.MTRS, BEARIN G PLOT NO.1, PART OF LARGER PLOT NO 3/1 IN THE LAYOUT OWNED BY HATKES H CO-OP HSG. SOCIETY, JVPD SCHEME, JUHU, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI - 40005 6 FROM 3 MR. NEELKANT MANISHANKAR DHOLAKIA, PRINCESS STREET, BOMBAY - 400 002 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.14,990/-. IN 1966 SHRI. VINOD BROK ER GOT CONSTRUCTED ON HALF PORTION OF THE PLOT (404 SQ.MTRS APPR OX) A BUNGALOW ADMEASURING 2225 SQ.FT. AT A COST OF RS.47,000/-. THE HOUS E PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED UNDER SUPERVISION OF ARCHITECTS M/S KP DAVAR & CO., BOMBAY AND WAS OCCUPIED BY SHRI. VINOD BROKER AND HIS FAM ILY. THE ENTIRE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS BORNE EX CLUSIVELY BY SHRI.VINOD BROKER OUT OF HIS EARNINGS AND SAVINGS. OUTGOINGS IN RESPECT OF HALF SHARE OF THE PLOT AND THE HOUSE PROPERTY SUCH AS PROPERTY TAXES, ELECTRICITY BILLS AND SOCIETY CHARGES WERE ALSO BORNE EXCLUS IVELY BY SHRI. VINOD BROKER. THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND HALF SHARE OF LAND WERE DISCLOSED IN SHRI VINOD BROKERS INCOME TAX RETURNS IN A.Y.1967-68 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND ALSO IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURNS IN Y EARS IN WHICH HE WAS LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX. THESE WERE ALSO ASSESSED IN S HRI. VINOD BROKERS INCOME AND WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENTS SINCE 1966 T O DATE. THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO REMAIN THE OWNER OF HIS HALF SHARE O F THE PLOT SINCE DECEMBER 1958 WHICH REMAINED VACANT TILL SALE IN JULY 2007 . THE COST OF HALF SHARE OF THE PLOT RS.7,445/- INCURRED AND PAID FOR BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISCLOSED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ON 11.01.2007 BY DEE D OF ASSIGNMENT THE TWO BROTHERS SOLD OFF THEIR RESPECTIVE RIG HTS IN THE SUBJECT PLOT AND HOUSE PROPERTY STANDING IN THE PLOT TO MR. NA YAN A SHAH FOR AGREED CONSIDERATION OF RS.21,01,00,000/-. FOR MUTUAL CONV ENIENCE OF THE BUYER AND THE TWO BROTHERS THE TRANSFER WAS DONE BY A SINGLE DEED WHEREIN RESPECTIVE SHARE OF' THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS STATED AS UNDER: I) SHRI VINOD GULABDAS BROKER RS.12,25,51,330/- II) SHRI VIJAY GULABDAS BROKER RS. 8,75,48,670/ - 4 4. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.8,75,48,670/- REPRESENTING ASSESSEE'S HALF SHARE OF THE PLOT WAS DECLARED IN HIS INCOM E TAX RETURN UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. SHRI VINOD BROKER DECLARED S ALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12, 25,51,330/- REPRESENTING THE TRANSFE R OF HIS PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAINS CHARGEABLE THEREON AND DISCLOS ED THE SAME IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 2007-08 FILED WITH THE INCO ME TAX OFFICER, WARD 21(2)(4), MUMBAI UNDER PAN NO.AABPB4386P. THE ASSESS EE ENCLOSED WITH HIS RETURN SALE DEED AND VALUATION REPORT IN SUPPORT OF HIS DECLARATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF AC QUISITION OF PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION OF SHRI VINOD BROKERS HOUSE PROP ERTY, COPIES OF VINOD BROKERS INCOME TAX RETURNS RELEVANT TO AY 1967- 68, SUPPORTING VALUATION REPORTS AND ACCOUNTS, COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR T HE BUNGALOW AND AFFIDAVIT FROM SHRI VINOD BROKER OUTLINING THE FACTS AND ASSERTING EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE BUNGALOW CONSTRUCTED ON THE H ALF SHARE OF THE PLOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BY WRON GLY CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HALF OWNER OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED BY AND BELONGING TO SHRI VINOD BROKER. THE AO HAS MISREAD TH E SALE DEED AND ERRED IN RELYING ON THE' PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT / RE CORD OF THE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO CONCLUDE ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF T HE HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAN D AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.16,51,472/- BASED ON THE RATE OF RS.3 80/- SQ. FT. CERTIFIED BY REGISTERED VALUER M/S. S. K. GODBOLE & ASSOC IATES. THE AO HAS OBTAINED REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER MR. HARSHAD RU PAREL VALUING THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 AS FOLLOWS:- AREA RATE / SQ. FT AMOUNT LAND 6466.93 SQ. FT 360 23,28,094 BUILDING 2225 SQ. FT 720 16,02,000 TOTAL 39,30,094 5 5. THE AO HAS ADOPTED 50% THEREOF I.E., RS.19,65,047/- AS T HE ASSESSEE'S SHARE OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND & BUILDING. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS ARBITRARILY B I FURCATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION. LAND BUILDING TOTAL VINOD BROKER 10,38,00,000 12,50,000 10,50,50,000 VIJAY BROKER 10,38,00,000 12,50,000 10,50,50,000 20,76,00,000 25,00,000 21,01,00,000 THE AO HAS WORKED OUT ASSESSEE'S SHARE OF SALE CONS I DERATION AT RS .10,50,50,000/- IN PLACE OF RS . 8,75 , 48,670/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AT PARA 4.3 OF H IS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE BUNGALOW AT RS.25,00,000/- AND HAS SUBDIVIDED THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.21,01,00,000/- @ 50% HOLDING THAT BOTH THE BROTHERS ARE HELD EQUAL PART. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THIS IS NOT REASONABLE LOOKING AT THE PLETHORA OF EVIDENCES STRETCHING BACK TO 1968 WHEREBY THE BUNGALOW HAS ALWAYS BEEN SHOWN AS BELONGING TO THE ASS ESSEES BROTHER AND AS PER HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS, IT WAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE BUNGALOW BELONGED TO ASSESSEES BROTHER. THIS FACT HAS BEEN NEV ER DISPUTED THAT THE BUNGALOW WAS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE CO-OWNER / B ROTHER AND THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT ENJOY POSSESSION OF THE BUNGALOW BUT ONLY HIS PORTION OF THE V ACANT LAND. THEREAFTER, THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 4.4 OF HIS ORDER DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE BUNGALOW AT THE TIME OF SALE SO THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND CAN BE ISOLATED. THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE VALUATION OF THE BUNGALO W AT RS.25,00,000/- DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REASONABLE BUT THERE WAS NO CASE FOR DIVIDING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY (LAND AND BUILD ING) CONSIDERATIONS EQUALLY BETWEEN THE BROTHERS AND IT WAS HELD THAT VALUE OF 6 BUNGALOW CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT HOWEVER, THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION AS ALLOCATED TOWARDS THE LAND B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E., RS.20,76,00,000/- SHOULD BE SUB-DIVIDED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER IN THE RATIO OF 50 : 50 AND TH EREFORE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AT RS.10,3 8,00,000/- IN PLACE OF RS.8,75,48,670/-. 6. THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD.A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE TAKING US THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO.12 WHERE IN THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.01.2007 AND SUBMITTED THAT AT CLAUSE (H), IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.8,75,48,670/- WHICH HAS BEEN AGREED BET WEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER, WHEREAS THE SHARE OF THE BRO THER IN SALE CONSIDERATION WAS AT RS.12,25,51,330/-. THE LD.A.R. SUBMITTE D THAT IT IS NOT AT ALL DISPUTED AS PER RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT THA T THE ASSESSEES BROTHER HAS CONSTRUCTED THE BUNGALOW IN HIS SHARE OF LAN D AND THE BROTHER WAS STAYING IN THAT BUNGALOW WITH HIS FAMILY FOR MO RE THAN 40 YEARS. THAT WHEN THE CO-OWNERS / BROTHERS NOW DECID ED TO DISPOSE OF THE LAND ALONG WITH THE BUNGALOW, IT IS THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WILL GET IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION SINCE HE WAS RE SIDING IN THAT BUNGALOW. FURTHER, MORE, THE BUNGALOW IS LOCATED AT JUHU WHICH EVEN WAY BACK IN 1968 WAS A PRIME LOCATION CONTINUES TO BE S O AND IN SUCH SCENARIO, THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER IN RECEIVIN G SALE CONSIDERATION WAS MORE THAN THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES BROTHER / CO-OWNER HAS SHOWN HIS SHARE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND HAS PAID TA XES THEREON. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISCLOSED HIS SHARE OF CONSIDERATION REC EIVED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO HAS PAID TAXES THEREON. IN SUC H EVENT, THERE IS 7 NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS MORE THAN THE INDEX COST IN T HE CONTEXT OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TA X ACT DID NOT PROVIDE ANY JURISDICTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURTHER INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN MUTUALLY DECIDED AMONGST THE CO-OWNERS, THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES AS PER THE SAID AGRE EMENT. PLACING THESE ARGUMENTS ON RECORD, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE S ALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.8,75 ,48,670/- AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 11.01.2007 AND THIS ONLY SHOULD BE UPHELD. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF SUB-ORDINATE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DETERMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS ALREADY HELD THAT T HE VALUE OF BUNGALOW CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE BALANCE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS LAND AT RS.20,76,00,000/- HA S BEEN CORRECTLY SUB-DIVIDED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BRO THER / CO-OWNER IN THE RATIO OF 50:50. THEREFORE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE HELD AT RS.10,38,00,000/-. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS, HEARD THE RIVAL CO NTENTIONS AND ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. THE FACTS AS EVIDENT FROM RECORD THAT AS PER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, THE LAND BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER IN SHARE OF 50% EACH SHARE HO LDING AND THEREAFTER, THEY DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THIS LAND AND RECE IVE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION IN LIEU THEREOF. MEANWHILE, THE BROTHER /CO-OW NER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED A BUNGALOW WAY BACK IN 1968 ON HIS PORTION OF THE LAND, WHEREAS, THE PORTION OF ASSESSEES LAND REMAI NED VACANT. THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS STAYING IN THAT BUNGALO W FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE UPSCALE AREA OF JUHU, BOM BAY. 8 THEREAFTER, IN THE YEAR 2007, WHEN THEY DECIDED TO DISPOS E OF THIS PROPERTY, IT HAD TO BE DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE BUNGALO W SITUATED THEREON WHICH WAS OWNED, CONSTRUCTED AND IN POSSESSION OF THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY DECIDED THAT THE BROTHER WOULD R ECEIVE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,25,51,330/- AND THE ASSESSEE WILL REC EIVE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.8,75,48,670/-. BOTH THE BROTHERS HAVE D ISCLOSED THIS SALE CONSIDERATION IN THEIR TAX RETURNS AND HAD PAID TAXE S THEREON. THEREFORE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE RE VENUE AS SUCH BY MUTUAL BIFURCATION OF SHARES IN RESPECT OF RECEIVING SALE CON SIDERATION BY THE CO-OWNERS HEREIN BUT NONETHELESS QUESTION ARISES TH AT ONCE 50% SHARE EACH IS THE OWNER-SHIP IN THE LAND AS PER THE INITIA L AGREEMENT WHETHER NOW THE CO-OWNERS CAN DETERMINE THEIR RESPECT IVE SHARES OF RECEIVING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT THEIR OWN FREE WILL. TO T HIS QUIRY, THE LD.A.R. ANSWERED THAT IT IS EVIDENT BY AGREEMENT DATED 11 .01.2007 ENTERED INTO AND AFTER THE TRANSACTION WAS COMPLETED, TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS HIGHER THAN THE INDEX COST AND THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT ALSO COMPLIE D WITH AND MORE SO, THE REVENUE HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS BY THIS DECISION OF THE CO- OWNERS. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID AGREEMENT WHER E THE SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN ENUMERATED FOR THE CO-OWNER S, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE / JUSTIFICATION FOR ONE BROTHER RE CEIVING MORE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVING LESS. THAT E VEN WHILE ANALYZING THE DOCTRINE OF ADVERSE POSSESSION UNDER WH ICH A PERSON WHO IS NOT THE ORIGINAL OWNER BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY FOR A MINIMUM OF 12 YEARS WITHI N WHICH THE REAL OWNER DID NOT SEEK LEGAL RECOURSE TO OUST HIM, SUCH A PERSON WHO IS NOT A TITLE HOLDER / ORIGINAL OWNER BUT GETS RIGHT OVER TH E PROPERTY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF ADVERSE POSSESSION IS EMPOWERED TO CLAIM LEGAL 9 POSSESSION IN CASE HE IS DISPOSSESSED BY OTHERS, MEANING THEREBY WITHIN THIS DOCTRINE ALSO THERE IS A VALUE ACCRUED TO SUCH A PE RSON HAVING THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT AT A LL DISPUTED THAT THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE BUNGALOW SINCE HE HAS CONSTRUCTED WITH HIS OWN SAVINGS AND INCOME. IT HAS ALSO BEEN DISCLOSED IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS. THEREFORE, THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED BY HIM MORE THAN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH INCREA SED CONSIDERATION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FACTUALLY JUSTIFIED THROUGH EVIDENCES AND MA TERIALS ON RECORD, SIMILARLY, JUSTIFYING WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED A LESSER CONSIDERATION AMOUNT FOR HIS SHARE. THERE ARE NO DETAILS ON RECORD BROUGHT ACTUALLY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AGREEMENT ENTERE D INTO BETWEEN THE CO-OWNERS DATED 11.01.2007 FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. THESE AREAS NEED TO BE ASCERTAINED FACTUALLY WITH DETAILED VERIFICATION A ND THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD B E RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FACTUAL VERIFICATION AND RE-ADJ UDICATION AS OBSERVED ABOVE COMPLYING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE. THAT AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE VALUATION RE PORT AND OTHER EVIDENCES AND DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETE RMINING THIS MATTER. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A ) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INDICATED HERE INABOVE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8. ADDITIONAL GROUND: IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DETERMINING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.1038000 IN PLACE OF RS.875486, THIS GROUND ALSO NEEDS TO BE ASCERTAINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXAMINATION OF FACTS AS OBS ERVED BY US 10 EARLIER AND THUS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2020. YAMINI ' ( )*+ ,+) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A) - 3, PUNE. PR. CIT-3, PUNE. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. !'/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // $ %&'()* / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY + ), , / ITAT, PUNE.