Gopeshwar Prasad Agarwal, Kolkata V. A.C.I.T CC - XII,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 474/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4999 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AKHIL KR MANGLIK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Source of fund; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 1 OF 8 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 GOPESHWAR PRASAD AGARWAL,.......................... ..................APPELLANT 65, AUROBINDA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 005 [PAN: AFDPA 2813 D] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ...........RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE-XII, KOLKATA, PODDAR COURT, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI AKHIL KR. MANGLIK, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI AMITAVA BHATTACHARYA, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 11, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH 11, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CENTRAL-II, K OLKATA DATED 19.12.2012 AND ALTHOUGH THERE ARE AS MANY AS TWELVE GROUNDS RAISED THEREIN, THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, RELATES TO THE DETERMINAT ION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND OF THE ASSESESE AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR THE PU RPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN O RDER DATED 05.12.2008, TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERM INED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.4,93,480/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS NOTI CED BY THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 2 OF 8 OFFICER FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS.29,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AGAINST SALE OF LAND AT ASANSOL. SINC E THE SAID LAND WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS O N 31.03.2005 AND THE INCOME ARISING FROM SALE THEREOF WAS NOT DECLARED I N THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENTERTAINED A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE, THEREFORE, ISS UED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. IN REPLY, A LETTER WAS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE LAND AT ASANSOL WAS PURCHASED BY HIS FATHER ON 20.12.1971 A ND AFTER HIS DEATH, THE ASSESSEE INHERITED THE PROPERTY FROM HIM. IT WA S ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESESE THAT THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND DID NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY CAPITAL GAIN AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DECLA RING SUCH CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE NOTICED THA T THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS JOINTLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HIS FATH ER AND SINCE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS UTILIZED FOR THE SAID PURCHASE COUL D NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.29,0 0,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNEXPLAINED RECEIPT IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 14 7 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2011. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERR ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ELABORATE SUBMISSIO NS WERE MADE BY HIM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RAISING VARIOUS CONTENT IONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS STAND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.29,00,000/- MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT WAS NOT SUSTAINABL E. THE SAID SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED BY TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONS IDERATION THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COUN TER COMMENTS OFFERED I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 3 OF 8 BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISCUSSED AND DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE P ARAGRAPH NO. 9 TO 9.4 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO GONE THRO UGH THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER, COPY OF CE RTIFICATE OF T.K. MITRA, PLANNER & ESTIMATOR, CERTIFYING THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND UNDER REFERENCE FROM ASANSOL MUNICIPAL AREA, COPIES OF PURCHASE AND SALE DEED, COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN AND THE RE MAND REPORT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED A S ABOVE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVE D BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD LAND IN ASANSOL FOR A C ONSIDERATION OF RS.29 LAKHS AND CREDITED THE AMOUNT IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE LAND WAS NOT APPEARING IN THE APPELLAN T'S BALANCE SHEET AND HE ALSO DID NOT DISCLOSE CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF AFORESAID LAND. THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.2 9 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND IN LAW, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AD DITION OF ENTIRE SUM OF RS.29 LAKHS, WHICH WAS CREDITED TO TH E CAPITAL ACCOUNT, CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.29 LAKHS CANNOT BE MADE UNDER THE HEAD 'UNEXPLAINED RECEIPT' BECAUSE I T IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT ON THE RECORD THAT THE RECEIPT OF R S.29 LAKHS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND AT ASANSOL AND DULY DISC LOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THER E IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.29 LAKHS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND, THEREFORE, LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAX, IF ANY. IN FACT, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED T HAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDE R ASSESSMENT, BUT NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS SHOWN BY HIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT OF RS.29 LAKHS CREDITED TO TH E CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 9.1. ON PERUSAL OF PURCHASE DEED DATED 20.12.1971, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT'S FATHER SHRI GOPAL PRA SAD AND THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY JOINTLY FROM SMT. BELA DEVI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.50,000/-. AS PER THE PURCHASE D EED, THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FATHER WAS PLOTS OF LAND TOGETHER WITH CONSTRUCTIONS, ERECTIONS, STRUCT URES STANDING THEREON WITH ANCIENT LIGHTS WAYS PATHS AND COMMON P ASSAGES ETC. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THOUGH HIS SHARE IN THIS PROPER TY WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BALANCE SHEET, BUT HE DISCLOSED THE ONE-HALF PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURNS AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT ASANSOL. THUS, THE APPELLANT W AS THE OWNER OF THE ONE-HALF PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1971. T HE BALANCE ONE- HALF PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT'S FAT HER. THE APPELLANT'S FATHER DIED INTESTATE ON 20.05.1984. AF TER THE DEATH OF SHRI GOPAL PRASAD, HIS ONE-HALF PORTION IN THE PROP ERTY WAS DIVIDED AMONGST TWO BROTHERS I.E. THE APPELLANT, SH RI GOPESHWAR I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 4 OF 8 PRASAD AND HIS BROTHER, SHRI GYANESHWAR PRASAD. THU S, THE APPELLANT BECAME THE OWNER OF 75% OF PROPERTY AND H IS BROTHER, SHRI GYANESHWAR PRASAD BECAME THE OWNER OF 25% PROP ERTY. SUBSEQUENTLY, BY WAY OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT, GYANESHW AR PRASAD AGARWAL RELEASED AND RELINQUISHED HIS 25% RIGHT, TI TLE INTEREST IN THE SAID PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT. IN THIS M ANNER, THE APPELLANT BECAME THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY . IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT ENTERED INTO A MEMORAND UM OF AGREEMENT DATED 27.03.2006 WITH HIS BROTHER GYANESH WAR PRASAD AQARWAL FOR SALE OF SAID PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATI ON OF RS.29 LAKHS. THE SALE PROCEED WAS RECEIVED BY HIM VIDE CH EQUE NO. 378142 DATED 27.03.2006 DRAWN ON ALLAHABAD BANK, RE D CROSS PLACE, KOLKATA. THE SAID RECEIPT WAS CREDITED BY TH E APPELLANT IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, AS MENTIONED IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED BY THE APPELLAN T IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 9.2. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT IS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT NO CAPITAL GAIN IS TAXABLE IN TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD ONLY TAKEN THE ADV ANCE FOR THE SALE OF LAND. HOWEVER, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ON EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WI TH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. HE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND HE HA S ALSO RECEIVED THE FULL CONSIDERATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT AND HEN CE, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN WILL NOT BE COMPUTED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID CONTE NTION OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. 9.3. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE LAND UNDER QUESTION WAS A GRICULTURAL LAND AND, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE DE FINITION OF 'CAPITAL ASSET' AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2( 14)(III) OF THE ACT. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE W EALTH TAX RETURN THE LAND WAS SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. FURTHER, I N THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 20.12.1971, THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE LAN D HAD BEEN SHOWN AS 'RAYATI STHITIBAN', CLEARLY INDICATING THE REBY THAT THE PLOTS OF LAND WERE AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. IT IS SU BMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE LAND WAS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED L IMIT OF 8 KMS. FROM THE BOUNDARY OF ANY URBAN AREA. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM T. K. MITRA , PLANNER & ESTIMATOR. HOWEVER, ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE AP PELLANT THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HIM WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND BECAUSE HE H AS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME. AS MENTIONE D EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, THE LAND UNDER REFERENCE WAS NOT ONLY T HE LAND AS EVIDENCED BY PAGE NO.5 OF THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 2 0.12.1971. AS PER THIS DEED, THE PLOTS OF LAND WERE TRANSFERRED B Y THE ORIGINAL OWNER/SELLER TOGETHER WITH ALL CONSTRUCTIONS, ERECT IONS, STRUCTURES STANDING THEREON WITH ALL BENEFITS OF ANCIENT LIGHT S WAYS PATHS AND COMMON PASSAGES ETC. ETC. THUS, WHAT WAS PURCHA SED AND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT, WERE NOT MERELY PLOTS OF LAND. HO WEVER, IN THE I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 5 OF 8 COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT DID N OT SUBMIT ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE STRUCTURES ON THE SAID LAND. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLA NT: HAD MENTIONED THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE WEAL TH TAX RETURN, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND ONLY . THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED A CERTIFICATE OF MR. MITRA WHICH SAYS TH E LAND WAS SITUATED 10 KMS. AND 14 KMS. OUT OF ASANSOL MUNICIP AL AREA. HOWEVER, I FIND NO WEIGHT IN THIS CERTIFICATE BECAU SE IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT OR NOTIFICATIO N ETC. ON THE CONTRARY, AS PER THE VALUER'S REPORT IN FORM O- 1, THE LAND WAS SITUATED NEAR OLD AGE HOME, CLOSE TO DHAKESHWARI CO TTON MILL AND DAMODAR RIVER, BURNPUR. THE CLASSIFICATION OF LOCAL ITY HAS BEEN STATED AS 'HIGH AND MIDDLE CLASS' AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE CIVIC AMENITIES, LIKE SCHOOL, HOSPITALS, OFFICES, MARKET, CINEMA ETC. HAVE BEEN STATED TO BE CLOSE BY. THUS, IT IS DIFFICULT T O ACCEPT THAT THE PROPERTY UNDER QUESTION WAS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND U NLESS SOME EVIDENCE AND PROOF IS THERE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD BY HIM WAS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, IS REJECTED AND IT IS HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAX. 9.4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPE LLANT THAT IF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 IS DED UCTED FROM THE SALE PROCEED, THE CAPITAL GAIN WOULD BE IN NEGATIVE FIGURE. THE APPELLANT FILED THE COPY OF APPROVED VALUER'S REPOR T WHO DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.6,10,857/-. THE APPELLANT CALCULATED THE INDE XED COST IN F.Y. 2005-06 AT RS.30,35,959/- AND THE NET CAPITAL LOSS AT RS.1,35,959/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE VALUER'S REPORT IT IS OBSERVED THAT HE HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF LOCAL MA RKET ENQUIRY. HIS REPORT IS NOT BASED ON ANY PURCHASE OR SALE INS TANCE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY GOVERNMENT RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS. H E HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY ON ESTIMATION WITHOUT ANY SUPPO RTING EVIDENCE. HENCE, THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUER A T RS.6,10,857/- AS ON 01.04.1981 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THIS POINT WAS BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE APPELLANT BUT HE WAS HAVING NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS REGARD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.1,50,000/- CONS IDERING THE FACT THAT IT WAS PURCHASED FOR RS.50,000/- IN DECEM BER, 1971. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE CA PITAL GAIN INCOME ON SALE OF PROPERTY SOLD FOR RS.29 LAKHS, BY ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.1,50,000/- AND DEDUCTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION IN F.Y. 2005-06 AND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF CAPITAL GAIN. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE ALLOWED AND THE GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 6 OF 8 HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DECIDED VARIOUS ASPECTS OF T HE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.29,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE OF SALE OF LAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LIMITED CONTENTION TO DISPUTE O NLY ONE ASPECT RELATING TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF TH E ASSESSEES PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE L ONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE LAND. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE FA IR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS DETERMINED BY THE APPROVED VALUER AS PER HIS REPORT AT RS.6,10,857/- BUT THE S AME HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE VALUATION IS ADOPTED BY HIM AT RS.1,50,000/- WITHOUT GIVING ANY SOUND OR CONVINCIN G BASIS. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.50,000/- IN DECEMBER, 1971 AND BY T AKING THE SAME AS BASIS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADOPTED OR ESTIMATE D THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.1,50,000/-, WHICH IS QUITE F AIR AND REASONABLE. HE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT WHILE ESTIMATING THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981, THE REGISTERE D VALUER IN HIS VALUATION REPORT HAS NOT CITED ANY COMPARABLE CASES SPECIFICALLY IN THIS REGARD. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER PLACED AT PAGE NO. 45 AND 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO P OINT OUT THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY AS ON 01.04 .1981 WAS DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER ON CONSULTATION OF RECORDS FROM SUB-REGISTRY OFFICE AND INQUIRIES MADE FROM THE LOCAL MARKET. AS SPECIFICALLY NOTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER IN THE SAID REPORT, THE RATE OF 350 RUPEES PER COTTAH AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS ADOPTED BY HIM TO DETERMINE TH E FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON CONSULTATION OF RECORDS FROM SUB -REGISTRY OFFICE AND INQUIRIES MADE FROM LOCAL MARKET, WHICH REVEALED TH AT SIMILAR LAND IN THE LOCALITY WAS SOLD AT ABOUT RS.350/- PER COTTAH. ALT HOUGH NO SPECIFIC SALE INSTANCE WAS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTERED VALUER I N HIS REPORT AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., WE FIND THAT THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 7 OF 8 ASSESSEES PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER ON THE BASIS OF PREVAILING MARKET RATE AS FO UND BY HIM FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS OF SUB-REGISTRY OFFICE AS WELL AS INQUIRY MADE FROM LOCAL MARKET AND IT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE V ALUATION DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. ON THE OTH ER HAND, THE VALUE OF ASSESSEES PROPERTY AS ESTIMATED BY THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) AT RS.1,50,000/- AS ON 01.04.1981 BY TAKING PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SA ID PROPERTY AT RS.50,000/- IN DECEMBER, 1971, IN OUR OPINION, CANN OT BE SAID TO BE MADE ON SOUND OR CONVINCING BASIS BECAUSE THE VALUE OF P ROPERTIES DOES NOT VARY AT A FIXED OR CONSTANT RATE PERIODICALLY AND I T VARIES AT DIFFERENT RATES DURING DIFFERENT PERIODS DEPENDING ON SEVERAL FACTORS AFFECTING SUCH VALUES. AS SUCH, HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 CAN REASONABLY BE TAKEN A T RS.6,10,857/- AS ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND IF IT IS DONE SO, THERE WOULD BE NO CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AS RIGHTLY CO NTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS BE FORE US. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MARCH 11, 201 6. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) GOPESHWAR PRASAD AGARWAL, 65, AUROBINDA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 005 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XII, KOLKATA, PODDAR COURT, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 I.T.A. NO. 474/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 8 OF 8 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CEN TRAL-II, KOLKATA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.