RAM LAL SHARMA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 522/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1952 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNAM RAI DCIT DHK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 54F; 2(14); 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 522/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. RAM LAL SHARMA, KOTOTYA KI DHANI, GRAM- NINDAR, TEHSIL- AMER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BLLPS4485A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 523/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. GULLA RAM SHARMA, KOTOTYA KI DHANI, GRAM- NINDAR, TEHSIL- AMER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BBWPR0622K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 524/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. PRABHU DAYAL SHARMA, KOTOTYA KI DHANI, GRAM- NINDAR, TEHSIL- AMER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BPFPP3975N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 2 VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 525/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA, KOTOTYA KI DHANI, GRAM- NINDAR, TEHSIL- AMER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: DIXPS2857B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 526/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. RAM GOPAL SHARMA, KOTOTYA KI DHANI, GRAM- NINDAR, TEHSIL- AMER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BBGPR7449A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 527/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. RAM SWAROOP SHARMA, KOTOTYA KI DHANI, GRAM- NINDAR, TEHSIL- AMER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: EVTPS8248N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 528/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SH. GANGA SAHAI SHARMA, KOTOTYA KI DHANI, GRAM- NINDAR, TEHSIL- AMER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAGHG1615R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 3 FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI PUNAM RAI (D.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 13/10/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE 7 APPEALS BY THE 7 INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES WHO ARE RELATED AND CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND IN QUESTION DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) -5, JAIPUR DATED 27.03.2017 AND 28.03.2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2009- 10. THESE ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 144/147 AND CONFIRMED BY L D. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 41,35,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY: (I) TREATING THE LAND SOLD AS A CAPITAL ASSET WITHI N THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF IT ACT. (II) NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION FOR COST OF ACQUISI TION. (III) NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE. 2. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE COMMON IN 7 APPEALS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN EVEN WHEN THE LAND ACQUI RED BY THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT COST AND THU S, IN THE ABSENCE OF COST OF ACQUISITION, NO CAPITAL GAIN CAN BE CHAR GED TO TAX. ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 4 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE EVEN WHEN THE LAND IS ANCESTRAL LAND AND THUS, NOT ASSESSABLE IN THE INDIVIDUAL HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ASSESSABLE IN THE HAND OF HUF. 3. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO FILED THE APPLICATIONS F OR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RULES 29 OF THE ITAT RULES, 196 3. SINCE THE ADDITIONALS GROUNDS RAISED BY THESE ASSESSEES GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTERS, THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE TAKEN UP FIRST FOR THE HEARING A ND ADJUDICATION. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR ON TH E ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASS ED BY THE AO U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES WERE UNDER BELIEF THAT NO CAPITAL GAIN IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX ARISING FROM TRA NSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION. HOWEVER THE AO TREATED THE LAND IN QUE STION WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT, JAIPUR AND THEREFORE ASSESSED THE CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. IN T HE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TO TWO ISSUES THAT THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY COST AS I T WAS GRANTED /AWARDED TO THE FOREFATHERS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION AND TH E ASSESSEES HAVE INHERITED THIS LAND AS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY. THER EFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COST OF ACQUISITION THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT T HE COMPUTING OF THE ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 5 CAPITAL GAIN PROVISION FAILS AND THEREFORE, NO CAPI TAL GAIN CAN BE CHARGED TO TAX IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. B.C. SRIN IVASA SETTY 128 ITR 294 AS WELL AS DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS. THE SE COND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS REGARDING THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND THEREFORE IT WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF AND NOT IN THE HAND OF THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE. THE SE TWO ISSUES RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE T HOUGH IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NO VERIFICATION OR ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEST OF THESE TWO LEGAL ISSUES HOWEVER, FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THERE WAS A COST OF ACQUISI TION AND THE PROPERTY WAS NOT AN ANCESTRAL LAND. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. NTPC LIMITED 229 ITR 383 THE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ADMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADJUD ICATION. 5. ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1 REGARDING NO COST OF ACQ UISITION AND THEREFORE, CAPITAL GAIN CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. T HE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE CULTIVATORS OF THE LAND WHICH WAS UNDER THE JAGIRDA RI OF RAO INDER SINGH AND HIS WIFE (KNOWN AS MAA JI). SUBSEQUENTLY AS PE R THE RAJASTHAN LAND ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 6 REFORMS & RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS ACT, 1952 THIS LAND WAS ALLOTTED TO SH. JEEVAN & SH. KANHA. THUS THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED WITH OUT ANY COST OF THE CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO COST OF A CQUISITION OF THIS LAND IN THE HAND OF THE FOREFATHERS. SINCE THE ASSESSEES HA VE INHERITED THIS LAND BEING AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY, THEREFORE, AS PER PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 49(1) THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET IN THE HAND O F THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED IT. FURTHER, AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO SEC TION 49(1) THE COST OF PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE CONSIDERED A S IN THE HANDS OF THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSES WHO WERE ALLOTTED THIS LAND. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55 (2) READ WITH SECTION 55 (3) NO COST CAN BE IMPU TED TO THIS ASSET AS THERE WAS NO COST OF ACQUISITION. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55 ARE APPLICABLE ON LY WHEN THERE IS A COST BUT WHICH IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE THE COST IS NIL OR NO COST THEN THE QUESTION OF ASCERTAINING THE COST DOES NOT ARISE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANDHAR SINGH JI P. JADEJA 281 ITR 19 AS WELL AS THAKUR DWARA SHRI KRISHANJU MAHARAJ H ANDIYAYA, BARNALA VS. CIT 162 ITR 93. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF CIT VS. PASHU MOHAMMED ZAINUDDIN 142 TTJ 17. THUS THE LD. ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 7 AR HAS SUBMITTED THE LAND IS AN ANCESTRAL LAND AS A CCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREFORE, WHEN THERE IS N O COST OF ACQUISITION BY THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE THEN THE CAPITAL GAIN CANNOT BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT TH E AMENDMENT BROUGHT INTO STATUTE U/S 55(2) VIDE FINANCE ACT 1987 PROVID ES THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN RELATION A CAPITAL ASSET BEING GOODW ILL OF BUSINESS OR A TRADE MARKET OR TRADE NAME OR RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE OR RI GHT TO CARRY IN BUSINESS OR TENANCY RIGHT ETC. THE SAID PROVISIONS IS NOT A PPLICABLE IN CASE OF TANGIBLE ASSET AND PARTICULARLY FOR LAND IN QUESTIO N. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE COST OF ACQUISITION CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED BUT N O CONSIDERATION WAS PAID. THUS SHE HAS CONTENDED WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUCCESSION AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER COULD BE ASCERTAINED THEN THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF VS. B.C. SRINIVASA SETTY A S WELL OTHER HONBLE HIGH COURTS ARE NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD. DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT E VEN IF NO COST IS PAID BUT THE COST WAS ASCERTAINABLE AT THE TIME OF ACQU ISITION OF LAND THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55(3) ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 01.04.1981 WOULD BE THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 8 DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAJA MALWINDER SINGH 334 ITR 48 AS WELL AS DECISI ON IN CASE OF THAKUR DWARA SHRI KRISHANJU MAHARAJ HANDIYAYA, BARNALA VS . CIT 366 ITR 38 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT WHILE FOLLOWING THE FULL BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF RAJA MALWINDER SINGH REITERATED THE VIEW HAS TAKEN BY THE FULL BENCH. THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AR WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUCCESSION, THEREFORE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF T HE LAND IN QUESTION IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE TAKEN AS THE COST IN THE HAND OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE LAND. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED UNDER THE RAJASTHAN LAND REFO RMS AND RESUMPTION OF JAGIR ACT, 1952 WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION, THERE FORE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE HAND OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS NI L. THUS THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. B.C. SRINIVASA SETTY (SUPR A), DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANDHARSHING JI P. JADEJA (SUPRA) AS WELL AS CIT VS. H.H. MAHARANA SAHIB SHRI LOKENDRA SINGHJI THE JAGIR PROPERTY GIFTED TO THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE HAND OF THE ANCESTORS AND THEREF ORE NO CAPITAL GAIN ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 9 ACCRUED WHERE THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS NOT ASCERT AINABLE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE FAIR MARKET PRICE CANNOT BE TAKE N INTO CONSIDERATION WHERE THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS NOT ASCERTAINABL E. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAJA MALWINDER SINGH (SUPRA) HAS HELD TH AT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE COST OF ACQUISITION CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED , SECTION 55(3) PRESCRIBES THE COST TO THE EQUAL TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION IN CASE OF ACQUIRING THE LAND EITHER AT SOME COST OR WITHOUT COST BUT THERE CAN BE NO SITUATION WHEN THE COST IS INCA PABLE OF ASCERTAINMENT. THIS VIEW OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH CO URT WAS AGAIN REITERATED IN CASE OF THAKUR DWARA SHRI KRISHANJI M AHARAJA HANDIYAYA, BARNALA (SUPRA). THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE ARE D IVERGENT VIEWS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS ON THIS ISSUE PARTICULARLY THE INTERPRE TATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. B.C. SRINIVASA SETTY (SUPRA). THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. B.C. SRINIVASA SETTY WAS THE TAXABILITY OF CAPI TAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF GOODWILL OF A NEWLY COMMENCED BUSINESS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT NO BUSINESS COMMENCED FOR THE FIRST T IME POSSESSES GOODWILL FROM THE START. IT IS GENERATED AS THE BUS INESS IS CARRIED ON AND MAY BE AUGMENTED WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THEREFOR E, GOODWILL IN A NEWLY COMMENCED BUSINESS IS A SELF GENERATED ASSET AND IN THIS SAID ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 10 CONTEST THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SELF GENERATED ASSET LIKE GOODWILL IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. B.C. SHRINIVASA SETTY IN PARAS 8 TO 11 AS HELD AS UNDER:- 8 THE MODE OF COMPUTATION AND DEDUCTIONS FORTH IN S. 48 PROVIDE THE PRINCIPLE BASIS FOR QUANTIFYING THE INCOME CHAR GEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THAT HEAD SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESU LT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET: (II) THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED IS AN ASSET IN THE ACQUISITION OF WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENVISAGE A COST. THE INTENT GOES TO THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE ASSET, THAT IT IS AN ASSET WHICH P OSSESSES THE INHERENT QUALITY OF BEING AVAILABLE ON THE EXPENDIT URE OF MONEY TO A PERSON SEEKING TO ACQUIRE IT. IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSET BELONGS TO SUCH A CLASS, IT MAY, ON THE FACTS OF A CERTAIN CASE, BE ACQUIRED WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. THAT KIND OF CASE IS COVERED BY S. 49 AND ITS COST, FOR THE PURPOSE OF S . 48, IS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE PROVISIONS. THERE ARE OTHE R PROVISIONS WHICH INDICATE THAT S. 48 IS CONCERNED WITH AN ASSE T CAPITAL OF ACQUISITION AT A COST. SEC. 50 IS ONE SUCH PROVISIO NS. SO ALSO IS SUCH S S. (2) OF S. 55. NONE OF THE PROVISIONS PERTAININ G TO THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN SUGGESTS THAT THEY INCLUDE AN ASSET IN THE ACQUISITION OF WHICH NO COST AT ALL CAN BE CONCEIVED. YET THERE ARE ASSETS WHICH ARE ACQUIRED BY WAY OF PRODUCTION IN WHICH NO COST ELEMENT CAN BE IDENTIFIED OR ENVISAGED. FROM WHAT HAS GONE BEFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE GOODWILL GENERATED IN A NEW BUSINESS HAS B EEN SO REGARDED. THE ELEMENTS WHICH CREATE IF HAVE ALREADY BEEN DETAILED. IN SUCH A CASE, WHEN THE ASSET IS SOLD AND THE CONS IDERATION IS BROUGHT TO TAX, WHAT IS CHARGED IS THE CAPITAL VALU E OF THE ASSET AND NOT ANY PROFIT OR GAIN. ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 11 9. IN THE CASE OF GOODWILL GENERATED IN A NEW BUSIN ESS THERE IS THE FURTHER CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DET ERMINE THE DATE WHEN IT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. THE DATE OF ACQUISITI ON OF THE ASSET IS A MATERIAL FACTOR IN APPLYING THE COMPUTATION PROVI SIONS PERTAINING TO CAPITAL GAINS. IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION MENTIONED IN S. 48 IMPLIES A DATE OF ACQUISITION, A ND THAT INFERENCE IS STRENGTHENED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SS 49 AND 50 A S WELL AS SUB-S (2) OF S. 55. 10. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT IF THE GOODWILL GENER ATED IN A NEW BUSINESS IS REGARDED AS ACQUIRED AT A COST AND SUBS EQUENTLY PASSES TO AN ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB -S. (1) OF S. 49, IT WILL BECOME NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE COST OF ACQU ISITION TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER. HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE SUCH COST OF ACQUISITION. N OR CAN SUB-S. (3) OF S. 55 BE INVOKED, BECAUSE THE DATE OF ACQUISITIO N BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER WILL REMAIN UNKNOWN. 11. WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE GOODWILL GENERATED I N A NEWLY COMMENCED BUSINESS CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS AN ASSET WITHIN THE TERMS OF S. 45 AND, THEREFORE, ITS TRANSFER IS NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RULING LAID DOWN BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IS BASED ON SPECIFIC FACTS AND NATURE OF CAPITAL ASSET BEING GOODWILL WHICH IS SELF GENERATED AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE T HE DATE WHEN IT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSE T IS A MATERIAL FACTOR AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN APPLYING T HE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT TH E COST OF ACQUISITION AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 48 IMPLIES A DATE OF ACQUISITI ON, AND THAT INFERENCE IS ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 12 STRENGTHENED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION 49 AN D 50 AS WELL AS SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 55. THUS WHILE ANALYZING THE TERM THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AS PER SECTION 48 OF T HE ACT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED IS AN ASSET IN THE ACQUISITION OF WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENVISAGE A C OST. THE INTENT GOES TO THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE ASSET, THAT IT IS AN AS SET WHICH POSSESSES THE INHERENT QUALITY OF BEING AVAILABLE ON THE EXPENDIT URE OF MONEY TO A PERSON SEEKING TO ACQUIRE IT. IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSET BELONGS TO SUCH AS CLASS IT MAY, ON FACTS OF CERTAI N CASES BE ACQUIRED WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. THEREFORE, WHEN A CA PITAL ASSET WHICH POSSESSES THE INHERENT QUALITY OR MONETARY VALUE AT THE TIME WHEN THE PERSONS SEEKING TO ACQUIRE IT BUT IT WAS ACQUIRED WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF MONEY WOULD NOT TAKE SUCH CAPITAL ASSET IN THE CATE GORY THAT IT WILL NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE COST OF ACQUISITION. FURT HER, IN CASE OF SELF GENERATED INTANGIBLE ASSET LIKE GOODWILL THERE IS N OT ACQUISITION BY THE TRANSFEROR WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF LAND ACQUIRED BY THE TRANSFEROR WITHOUT ANY COST BUT IS CAPABLE ACQUISITION OF COST AND THE REFORE THE LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED WITHOUT COST CANNOT BE PUT INTO CATEGO RY OF THE ASSET WHICH IS SELF GENERATED AND THE DETERMINATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION IS NOT POSSIBLE. THERE MAY BE TWO CATEGORIES OF CAPITAL AS SET WHERE THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS NIL. IN FIRST CATEGORY NO COST IS PA ID BY THE PERSON WHO HAS ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 13 ACQUIRED IT. IN OTHER CASE THE ASSET IS SELF GENERA TED IN DUE COURSE OF TIME AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN THE COST OF ACQ UISITION AND DATE OF GENERATION/ACQUISITION. THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN THE CATEGORIES OF THE LAND IN QUESTION CARRIED/ POSSESS ES COST OR MONETARY VALUE THOUGH THE FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE ACQUI RED IT WITHOUT ANY COST. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55 (2 )(B) WOULD COME INTO PLAY. FOR READING REFERENCE SECTION 55(2)(B) 55(3) ARE QUOTED AS UNDER:- SECTION 55 (2(B) (B) IN RELATION TO ANY OTHER CAPITAL ASSET,] (I) WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE [1ST DAY OF APRIL, [1981]], MEANS THE COST OF A CQUISITION OF THE ASSET TO THE ASSESSEE OR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET ON THE [1ST DAY OF APRIL, [1981]], AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE ; (II) WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BY ANY OF THE MODES SPECIFIED IN [SUB-SECTION (1) OF] SECTION 49, AND THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER BEF ORE THE [1ST DAY OF APRIL, [1981]], MEANS THE COST OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET ON THE [1ST DAY OF APRIL, [1981]], AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE ; (III) WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS OF A COMPANY ON ITS LIQUIDATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' IN RESPECT OF THAT ASSET UNDER SECTION 46, MEANS TH E FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET ON THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION ; (IV) [***] [(V) WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET, BEING A SHARE OR A ST OCK OF A COMPANY, BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE ON (A) THE CONSOLIDATION AND DIVISION OF ALL OR ANY OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY INTO SHARES OF LARGER AMOUNT THAN ITS EXIST ING SHARES, (B) THE CONVERSION OF ANY SHARES OF THE COMPANY IN TO STOCK, ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 14 (C) THE RE-CONVERSION OF ANY STOCK OF THE COMPANY INTO SHARES, (D) THE SUB-DIVISION OF ANY OF THE SHARES OF THE C OMPANY INTO SHARES OF SMALLER AMOUNT, OR (E) THE CONVERSION OF ONE KIND OF SHARES OF THE CO MPANY INTO ANOTHER KIND, MEANS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET CALCULAT ED WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SHARES OR STOCK FROM WHI CH SUCH ASSET IS DERIVED. SECTION 55 (3) 'WHERE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER ACQUIR ED THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO T HE PREVIOUS OWNER MEANS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAPI TAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THUS AS PER CLAUSE (B) SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 5 5 READ WITH SECTION 49 (1)(III)(A) OF THE ACT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET ACQUIRED BY SUCCESSION OR INHERITANCE OR DEVALUATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUI RED IT. WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE O R PREVIOUS OWNER BEFORE 01.04.1981 THE COST OF ACQUISITION MEANS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE ASSET ON 01.04.1981 AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IN C ASE WHERE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY CANN OT BE ASCERTAINED THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER MEANS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET BECOMES THE PRO PERTY OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER AS PROVIDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 55. SINCE THIS CASE OF ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 15 THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55 (2)(B) READ WITH SECTION 49(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THEREFORE, THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL G AIN WOULD BE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. THE FULL BENCH OF HO NBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. B.C. SRINIVASA SETTY (SUPR A) AS WELL AS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR ON THIS POINT H AS OBSERVED IN PARAS 5 TO 7 AS UNDER:- 5. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE JUDGMENT IN B.C. SHR INIVASA SETTYS CASE (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE. IT WAS OBSERVED THEREIN THAT IN A NEWLY STARTED BUSINESS THE VALUE OF GOODWILL WAS NOT ASCE RTAINABLE, AND ON SALE OF GOODWILL, CAPITAL GAIN WAS NOT ATTRACTED. I T IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND, THE SAME IS EIT HER ACQUIRED AT SOME COST OR WITHOUT COST AND UNDER THE SCHEME OF T HE ACT, THERE CAN BE NO SITUATION WHEN THE COST IS INCAPABLE OF A SCERTAINMENT. SECTION 55(2) PROVIDES FOR TAKING THE COST EITHER E QUAL TO THE MARKET VALUE AS ON JANUARY 1, 1954, OR AT THE OPTION OF TH E ASSESSEE EQUAL TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER. S ECTION 55(3) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, IT HAS TO BE TAKEN TO BE EQU AL TO THE MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED BY THE PRE VIOUS OWNER. THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 49(2), I.E., WHO ACQUIRE S PROPERTY OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF GIFT, WILL OR BY SUCCESSIO N. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE P ROPERTY BY SUCCESSION FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER. ACCORDING TO TH E STAND OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION BY THE PREVIOUS O WNER COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED. HOWEVER, HE FAILED TO EXERCISE THE OPT ION OF GOING EITHER BY THE DATE OF MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF A CQUISITION OR BY THE COST OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER IN WHICH CASE THE ON LY OPTION ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 16 AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO PROCEED T O COMPUTE CAPITAL GAIN BY TAKING THE COST OF THE ASSET TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE SPECIFIED DATE, I.E., JANUARY 1, 1954 AS PER AP PLICABLE PROVISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1977-78 AND AS ON JANUARY 1, 19 64 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1978-79. EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE C OST OF ACQUISITION CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, SECTION 55(3) ST ATUTORILY PRESCRIBES THE COST TO BE EQUAL TO THE MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION. THIS BEING THE POSITION, CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT EXCLUDED EVEN ON THE PLEA THAT VALUE OF THE ASSET IN RESPECT OF W HICH CAPITAL GAIN IS TO BE CHARGED WAS INCAPABLE OF BEING ASCERTAINED. T HE VIEW TAKEN IN AMRIK SINGHS CASE (SUPRA) BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHERE MARKET VALUE CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, CAPITAL GAIN CA NNOT BE APPLIED, IS NOT CORRECT BEING AGAINST THE STATUTORY SCHEME. SIMILARLY, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT V. H. H. MAHARAJA SAHIB SHRI LOKENDRA SINGHJI [1986] 162 ITR 93/25 TA XMAN 66 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE SAID JUDGMENT ALSO DOES NOT GIVE EFFECT TO THE MANDATE OF SECTION 55(3) WHICH PROVIDES FOR A S ITUATION WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET ACQUIRED COULD NOT BE ASCERT AINED. IF THE MARKET VALUE CAN BE ASCERTAINED, IT HAS TO BE TAKEN TO BE EQUAL THERETO AND IF THE VALUE CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, IT HAS TO BE EQUAL TO THE MARKET VALUE ON A SPECIFIED DATE AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LAND HAD NO MA RKET VALUE AT ALL ON THE DATE OF ITS ACQUISITION. THE CONTENTION THAT THE VALUE WAS INCAPABLE OF BEING ASCERTAINED, AS ALREADY OBSERVED , THE VALUE IN SUCH CASE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS BEING EQUAL TO MARKET VALUE ON A SPECIFIED DATE. 7. WE, THUS, HOLD THAT EVEN WHERE THE COST OF ACQUI SITION OF CAPITAL ASSET CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED BUT THE ASSET HAS A MAR KET VALUE, CAPITAL GAIN WILL BE ATTRACTED BY TAKING THE COST O F ACQUISITION TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON JANUARY 1, 1954, OR ON DATE STATUTORILY SPECIFIED OR AT THE OPTION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MAR KET VALUE ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT REITERATE D THIS VIEW IN CASE OF THAKUR DWARA SHRI KRISHANJI MAHARAJ HANDIYAYA, BARN ALA VS. CIT (SUPRA). ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 17 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF THAKUR DWARA SHRI KRI SHANJI MAHARAJ HANDIYAYA, BARNALA VS. CIT (SUPRA) I AM OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF T HE CAPITAL ASSET FOR WHICH THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BE ASCER TAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE WOU LD BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE IS D ECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEES. 7. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE CAPITAL GAIN IS AS SESSABLE IN THE HAND OF HUF AND NOT IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPP ORT OF THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF COPY OF SALE DEED ON 08.05.2008 AND REVENUE RECORD IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AS WELL AS THE COPIES OF REVENUE RECORD/ MUTATION I N THE NAME OF EARLIER OWNERS OF THE LAND. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CO NSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMEN TLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SUBMITTED THE DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO AND LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE REASONS AS TO WHY THIS EVIDEN CE WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 18 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CARE FUL PERUSAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PROPOSED TO BE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS NOTED THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE EITHER THE COPIES OF THE REVENUE RECORD SHOWING THE STATUS OF THE L AND IN QUESTION IN PAST OR A SALE DEED DATED 08.05.2008. THEREFORE FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OR SCOPE OF CREATING OR MAN IPULATING WITH THE EVIDENCE. THUS THE QUESTION OF CREATING ANY EVIDENC E OR PUTTING UP A CLAIM IN THE NATURE OF AFTERTHOUGHT IS RULED OUT. ACCORDI NGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE WHEN ALL THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL AND REACH OF THE ASSESSEE AND FU RTHER WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED DUE TO THE TIME CONSTRAINED T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMI TTED. 10. HAVING ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2 IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED AFTER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF T HE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERATION AND EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 19 NOW MAIN GROUND 11. GROUND NO. 1 AND GROUND 2 (III) OF THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT PRESS GROUND NO. 1 AND GROUND NO. 2(II) OF THE APPEALS. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION EVEN THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACC ORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 AND GROUND NO. 2(III) OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA LS ARE DISMISSED HAVING NOT PRESSED. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE ON THE MERITS OF CONFIRMING THE CAPITAL GAIN. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND REGARDING THE ASS ESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HAND OF HUF HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE RECORD OF THE AO AND THE SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THEREFORE, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD O F THE AO TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THE SAME IF NEED ARISES. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/10/2017. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL; @ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 31/10/2017 *SANTOSH ITA 522 TO 528/JP/17_ RAM LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ITO 20 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SH. RAM LAL SHARMA, SH. GULLA RAM SHARMA, PRABHU DAYAL SHARMA, JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA, SH. RAM GOPAL SHARMA, SH. RAM SWAROOP SHARMA & SH. GANGA SA HAI SHARMA, KOTOTYA KI DHANI, GRAM- NINDAR,TEHSIL- AMER , JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKH @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR. 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. 522 TO 528/JP/17) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRARV