RAMDAS SONBA TUPE, Pune V. ITO, Pune

ITA 534/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 53424514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Retrospective amendment; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.534/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) RAMDAS SONBA TUPE, S.NO.166/23, MALVADI, HADAPSAR, PUNE 411028 PAN NO.ADTPT0902A .. APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-1(3), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL PATHAK & SHRI SUHAS BORA REVENUE BY : SMT. S. PRAVEENA DATE OF HEARING : 07-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-07-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 20-12-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR ON 02- 12-2005 DECLARING TOTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF R S.96,08,800/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE-OPENED THE A SSESSMENT U/S.147 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 ON 17-03-2010. ON PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LANDS SITUATED AT SADE SATRA NALI, HADAPSAR, I.E. SY.NO.182/2/1+2+3+4A+4 ADMEASURING 40R, SY.NO.182/2 /1+2+3+4B 2 ADMEASURING 75R AND SY.NO.182/2/5 ADMEASURING 68R T O M/S. CITY DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS VIDE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 22-04- 2004 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,85,00,000/-. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY WAS ADOPTED AT RS.2,27,75 ,033/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 50C, IF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS HIGHER THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WILL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER/SALE. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS TAKEN THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.320 PER SQ. MTR, I.E. 29. 73 PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01-04- 81 OF RS.58,56,000/-. HE, THEREFORE, REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO U/S.55A AND 50C(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO DETERMI NE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-81 AND 22-04-2004. THE VALUATION OFFICER, SOLAPUR VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 20-09-2010 DETERMINED THE FAI R MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-81 AND 22-04-2004 AS UNDER : FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED AS ON 01-04-1981 RS.18 ,48,000/- FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED AS ON 22-04-2004 RS.2 ,59,86,000/- 2.1 THE DVO DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01-04-81 AT RS.101 PER SQ. MTR, THUS, ARRIVED AT RS.1,84,800/- WHICH COMES TO 9.40 PER SQ.FT. HOWEVER, THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AT RS.320/- PER SQ. MTR AND IS SHOWN AT R S.58,56,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE FAIR MARKE T VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AS ON 22-04-2004 WAS AT RS.2,59,86,000/- . AFTER CONSIDERING THE COST OF ACQUISITION ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT AND AFTER INDEXING THE COST OF ACQUISITION THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.1,71,56,000/- AS AGAI NST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.96,08,8 00/-. AFTER ALLOWING 3 THE DEDUCTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AT HADAPSAR , PUNE U/S.54F AT RS.27,13,436/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE NET CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1,44,00,724/-. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE VA LUATION DEPARTMENT. FURTHER, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE REFERENCES MADE TO THE VALUATION CELL U/S.55A IS NOT VALID BECAUSE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A(A) REFERENCES TO VALUATION OFFICE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CAN ONLY BE MADE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT TH E ESTIMATE BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON REGISTERED VALUER REPORT IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE FORMED SUCH OPINION SINCE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AS ON 01-04-81 IS ON THE HIGHER S IDE AND NOT ON THE LOWER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE VALU ATION AS ON 01-04-81 AND 22-04-2004 WERE WRONGLY MADE BY THE DVO BY REFE RRING INSTANCES WHICH ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO ASSESSEES CASE DUE TO LOCATION, PROXIMITY AND SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED A REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER WHICH C OULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RELYING ON VARI OUS DECISIONS IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOU LD BE REVERSED AND THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD BE ACCEPTED. 4. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO WAS NOT SATISFIED WI TH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 4 THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE RAISED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL- I )ERRED IN COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 1,44,00,724/ - AS AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.96,08,800/ -. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL- I) IS ERRED IN REFERRING THE MATTER FOR VALUATION CELL FOR DETERMI NING THE VALUE AS ON 1/4/1981 THEREBY MISINTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 55A(A)AND (B). 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL- I) IS ERRED IN ADOPTING THE VALUATION AS ON 01/04/1981 AND 22/04/20 04 WHICH IS WRONGLY MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER BY REFERRING THE INSTANCES WHICH ARE NON-COMPARABLE TO ASSESSEE'S CASE DUE TO LOCATION PR OXIMITY AND SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS/ ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IF ANY REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ITS CASE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER AN Y OF THE GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD TO THE SAME, IF DEEMED NECESSA RY. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET R EFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF ITO VS. MRS. SANGEETA JEEVAN BHONSALE VIDE ITA NO.1125/PN/2012 O RDER DATED 30- 05-2014 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRI BUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 BY INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS SECTION 55A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR DETERMINING T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 ON THE GROUND THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE MUST BE LESS THAN AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE HOLDING SO HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO AND ANR. REPORTED IN 6 DTR 203 (GUJ.) AND THE DECISION OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS REPORTED IN 98 DTR 177. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IT IS A COVERED MATTER IN 5 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED T HAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE BE ALLOWED. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CI T(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. FROM THE VARIOU S DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THE ASSESSE E HAS DECLARED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.96,08,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,85,00,000/-. THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN ADOPTED AT RS.2,27,7 5,033/-. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DV O U/S.55A AND 50C(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 AND 22-04-2004. FROM THE REPORT OF THE DVO AS WELL AS THE VALUATION REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM A REGIS TERED VALUER WE FIND THE FOLLOWING DETAILS : DVO REGISTERED VALUER FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED AS ON 01-04-1981 RS.18,48,000/- 58,56,000/- FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED AS ON 22-04-2004 RS.2,59,86,000/- 2,27,75,033/- (FMV FOR STAMP DUTY) 7.1 WE FIND THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 0 1-04-1981 HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.320 PER SQ. MTR. I.E. 2 9.72 PER SQ.FT. WHEREAS THE DVO HAS DETERMINED SUCH FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS .101 PER SQ. MTR AS ON 01-04-1981, I.E. 9.40 PER SQ.FT. SIMILARLY, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE 6 DETERMINED BY THE DVO STANDS AT RS.2,59,86,000/- WH EREAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE IS RS.2 ,27,75,033/-. 7.2 IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A ARE NOT APPLICABLE IF THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01-4-1981 IS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE. WE FIND AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. SANGEETA JEEVAN BHONSALE (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUN AL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISMISSING THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL READ AS U NDER : 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL ARGUES THAT THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE REVENUE APP EAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS (2014) 98 DTR (BOM) 1 77. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HIAB EN JAYANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO & ANR. 6 DTR 203 (GUJ). 6. IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS EXAMINED THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE REFERENCE U/S. 55A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENT MADE TO S EC. 55A (A) AND HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE FIND THAT S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT VERY CLEARLY A T THE RELEVANT TIME PROVIDED THAT A REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO ONLY WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE VALUE A DOPTED BY THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.35.99 LAKHS WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.6.68 LAKHS EVEN AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO. IN FACT, THE AO REFERRED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DVO ONLY BECAUSE IN HIS VIEW THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1981 AS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE AFOR ESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INVOCATION OF S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED . 8. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF TH E AMENDMENT TO S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT IN 2012 BY WHICH THE WORDS IS LE SS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ARE SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORDS IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE IS CLARIFIACTORY AND SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROS PECTIVE EFFECT. THIS SUBMISSION IS IN FACE OF THE FACT THAT THE 2012 AME NDMENT WAS MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM 1 ST JULY, 2012. THE PARLIAMENT HAS NOT GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO THE AMENDMENT. THEREFORE, THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT AS EXISTING DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YR. 2006-07. AT THE RELEVANT TIME, VERY CLEARLY REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO DVO ONLY IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE OPINION OF AO LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. 9. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO BY THE AO IS SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF S. 55A(A)(II) [55A(B)( II)] OF THE ACT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT S. 55A(B) O F THE ACT VERY CLEARLY 7 STATES THAT IT WOULD APPLY IN ANY OTHER CASE I.E. A CASE NOT COVERED BY S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTA BLE POSITION THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, RESORT CANNOT BE HAD TO THE RESIDUARY CLAUSE PROVIDED IN S. 55A(B)(II) OF THE A CT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CBDT CIRCULAR DT. 25TH NOV., 1972 CAN HAVE NO A PPLICATION IN THE FACE OF THE CLEAR POSITION IN LAW. THIS IS SO AS THE UNDERS TANDING OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS BY THE REVENUE AS FOUND IN CIRCULAR ISSU ED BY THE CBDT IS RIOT BINDING UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS OPEN TO AN ASSE SSEE TO CONTEND TO THE CONTRARY. 7. IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. UNDER CL. (A) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT THE AO IS EN TITLED TO MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER IN A CASE WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE E STIMATE MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER, IF THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN ANY OTHER CASE, AS P ROVIDED UNDER CL. (B) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS TO RECORD AN OPINION THA T (I) THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE OR BY MORE THAN SUCH A N AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; OR (II) HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET AND OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE SUC H A REFERENCE. 11. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL (ANNEX. D) FROM RESPONDENT NO. 2 DVO TO THE PETITIONER INSOFAR AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981 IS CONCERNED, TH E PETITIONER HAD CLAIMED THE SAME AT A SUM OF RS.6,25,000 AS PER REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO FORM AN OPINION T HAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE EST IMATED VALUE PROPOSED BY THE DVO IS SHOWN AT RS.3,97,000, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981. THEREF ORE, CL. (A) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE. CLAUSE (B) OF S. 55A OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN ANY OTHER CASE, NAMELY WHEN THE VAL UE OF THE ASSET CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY AN ESTIMATE MAD E BY A REGISTERED VALUER. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, CL. (B) O F S. 55A OF THE ACT ALSO CANNOT BE INVOKED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HAVI NG RECOURSE TO SUB-CL. (II) OF CL. (B) OF S. 55A OF THE (ACT. 12. THERE IS ONE MORE ASPECT OF THE MATTER. FOR INV OKING S. 55A OF THE ACT, THERE HAS TO BE A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE AO CAN RECORD OPINION EITHER UNDER CL. (A) OR CL. (B) OF S. 55A O F THE ACT TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE GO TO SHOW THAT THE REFERENCE WAS MADE ON 26TH APRIL, 1996, WHEREAS, TH E RETURN OF INCOME HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 27TH AUG., 1996. HENCE, ON THE DATE OF MAKING THE REFERENCE BY THE AO, NO CLAIM WAS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO COULD NOT HAVE FORMED ANY OPINION AS TO EXISTENCE OF PRESCRIBED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THEREFORE ALSO, PROVISIONS OF S. 55A OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESORTED TO BY THE AO. 8. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER T O MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 BY INVOKI NG U/S. 55A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 ON THE OPINION THAT FMV MUST BE LESS THAN AS DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE SAME AND GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8 7.3 SINCE THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE DECISION CITED (SUPRA), THER EFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BY INVOKING PROVISIONS U/S.55A OF THE INCOME TAX AC T FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981. IN THIS VI EW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEP TING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDIN GLY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO A CCEPT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08-07-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PAND A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 08 TH JULY, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 4. THE CIT-I, PUNE 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE