ITO 25(3)(1), MUMBAI V. CHAMPABEN C. PATEL, MUMBAI

ITA 5686/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 568619914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C , MUMBAI . . , . . . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI , AM AND DR.S.T.M.PAVALAN , JM ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/ 2012 : ASST.YEAR 2007 - 2008 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(3)(1) MUMBAI. / VS. SMT. CHAMPABEN C.PATEL B - 16, ROOP KAMAL, S.V.ROAD KANDIVALI (WEST) MUMBAI 400 06 7 . PAN : AAAPP9875C. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.L.PERUMAL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAYUR MAKADIA / DATE OF HEARING : 11 .02 .201 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 .02.20 1 4 / O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI (AM) : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 35 , MUMBAI. 2. ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) ARE APPLICABLE OR NOT , TO THE SALE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.07.2007 DECLAR ING AN INCOME OF RS.1,81,520/ - , WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSED ON 26.12.2008 WHEREIN THE TOTAL ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 2 INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS ACCEPTED. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED HER 2/ 7 TH SHARE , WHICH S HE WAS HAVING AS DEVELOPMENT RIGHT IN A PROPERTY BEARING S URVEY N O. 8, H ISSA NO.2 AND NOW BEARING CTS NO. 575 SITUATED AT VILLAGE POISAR, TALUKA BORIVALI. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND HAVING AN AGGREGATE AREA OF 4428.60 SQ.MTRS. OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE S SHARE WAS 1265.31 SQ .MTRS. (BEING 2/7 TH SHARE). THE SAID RIGHTS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SMT.LEENA BAGWE VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 19.09.1992 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.8,95,000/ - FOR 1/7 TH SHARE AND FROM NARENDRA GAONKAR VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 10.04.1993 FOR AN IDENTICAL AMOUNT OF RS.8,95,000/ - FOR THE REMAINING 1/7 TH SHARE. WHEN SUCH RIGHTS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID PROPERTY WAS UNDER PROTRACTED LITIGATION , BESIDES THE PROPERTY WAS ALSO PLAGUED BY VARIOUS NEGATIVE FACTORS AND THERE WAS NO APPROACH ROAD. AS SUCH THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED AS EXPECTED AND THEREFORE, TRANSFERRED TO M/S.JAJODIA AND PATEL PROPERTIES. THE SAID TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WAS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE ALO NG WITH OTHER CO - OWNERS, VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 16.06.2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,07,000/ - (ASSESSEE S SHARE). THEREAFTER , THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM ITO - 8(3) - (1), MUMBAI , THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHANDU LAL P.PATEL, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A SALE OF PROPERTY FOR RS.12,85,000/ - , WHOSE STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS RS.4,99,50,000/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE CAPITAL GAIN S ON THE SHARE OF PROPERTY OF SHRI CHANDULAL P.PATEL WAS WORKED OUT AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. ON THE AFORESAID ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 3 PREMISES, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY CAPITAL GAINS IN HER CASE SHALL NOT BE WORKED OUT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF PROTRACTED LITIGATIONS AND COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THE TITLE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY ITSELF WAS DEFECTIVE. THEREF ORE, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED AT RS.4,99,50,000/ - BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY WAS ON HIGHER SIDE. THE AO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2010 U/S 50C OF THE AC T IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHANDULAL P.PATEL, WHO IS THE CO - OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY (ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE S CASE WAS REOPENED) DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.1,30,91,000/ - . HE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE SHARE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION I N ASSESSEE S HAND AT RS.37,40,286/ - AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND, THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 18, MUMBAI, VIDE ORDER DATED 06.02.2012 HAS HELD THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DEVELO P THE PROPERTY AND MAKE PROFIT OUT OF THE SAME AND BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF INDERLOK HOTELS (P) LTD. V. ITO 32 SOT 419 (MUM) AND CIT V. ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 4 THIRUVENGADAM INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. 320 ITR 345 (MAD) HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WE RE NOT AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF INDERLOK HOTELS (P) LTD. V. ITO (SUPRA), HELD THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, BY OBSERVING IN PARA 6.2.9 TO 6.2.15 AS UNDER: - 6.2.9. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SALE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT S BY THE APPELLANT AS THE SAME ARE IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT ASSETS AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE SALE VALUE AT RS.3,07,000/ - AS PER THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 16.06.2006. 6.2.10. I NOW PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE SECOND PROPOSITION OF THE AR THAT SHE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARS ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH IN THIS REGARDS. THE AR HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE TWO AGREEMENTS DATED 19.09.1992 AND 10.04.1993 BY W HICH THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED. A SCRUTINY OF THE TWO AGREEMENTS REVEALS THAT THESE HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ON NON - JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER OF RS.10/ - EACH AND FURTHER, THESE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED WITH SUB - REGISTRAR. THUS, IF THE TITLE OR THE OWN ERSHIP OF THESE PROPERTIES WERE TO TRANSFER TO THE APPELLANT, IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT PROPER STAMP DUTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID AT THE TIME OF THE IMPUGNED TRANSFER WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, IT PRIMA - FACIE APPEARS THAT APPELLANT IS NOT TRUE AND LAWFUL OWNER OF THE SAID ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 5 PROPERTY AND WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED WAS ONLY CERTAIN RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. 6.2.11. THE AR HAS THEN REFERRED TO THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE DT.24.04.2006 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ORIGINAL OWNERS I.E. LEGAL HEIRS OF SMT. LILAWATI KRISH NARAO RAUT ETC. AND SHRI RAMDAS SANGLE AND OTHERS BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE ORIGINAL OWNERS HAVE TRANSFERRED THE ENTIRE RIGHTS, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE SAID PROPERTY TO THE OTHER PARTIES I.E. SHRI RAMDAS SANGLE AND OTHERS FOR A SUM OF RS.1,25,00,000/ - . THIS ACTION OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS WERE NEVER WITH THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, THE SAID CONVEYANCE DEED DT.21.04.2006 HAS BEEN DULY REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR AFTER PAYMENT OF FULL STAMP DUTY OF RS.21, 70,000/ - . IN MY VIEW, THIS CONVEYANCE DEED DT.21.04.2006 ON WHICH FULL STAMP DUTY IS PAID AND IS DULY REGISTERED ESTABLISHES THE OWNERSHIP IN FAVOUR OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND WOULD SURELY HAVE MORE WEIGHTAGE IN THE EYES OF LAW AS COMPARED TO THE AGREEMENT S 19.09.1992 AND 10.04.1993 WHICH ARE UNREGISTERED AND HAVE BEEN ENTERED ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS.10/ - EACH AND THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO ME THE ARS ARGUMENT THAT THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS WERE NEVER WITH THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT. 6.2.12. COMING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER S OBJECTION THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS WITH THE APPELLANT IS ALSO MISPLACED AS THE HON BLE MUMBAI CITY CIVIL COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DT.20.10.1993 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2639 OF 1990 IN SUIT NO.3573 OF 1990 FILED BY SHRI LALJI LACHCHMAND AS CLAIMING TO BE A TENANT AND IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAS RECOGNIZED HIM AS HAVING PHYSICAL POSSESSION OVER THE LAND AND HAS GRANTED PREVENTED THE OWNERS FROM DISPOSSESSING HIM OF THE SAID LAND. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE HON BLE MUMBAI CITY CIVIL COURT, EVEN THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT WITH THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 6 6.2.13. COMING TO THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT TO COME OUT OF PROLONG LITIGATION, THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO A FIRM, M/S.JAJODIA PATEL AND PROPERTIES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE SON OF THE APPELLANT IS A PARTNER I N THE SAID FIRM IS IRRELEVANT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSFER. ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS GROUND. 6.2.14. THUS, AS NEITHER THE LEGAL TITLE NOR THE PHYSICAL POSSESSIO N OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS WITH THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 6.2.15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AT NIL FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS NOT DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN / LOSS OR TRADING GAIN / LOSS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY EITHER AS A CAPITAL ASSET OR AS STOCK IN TRADE IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, AS HEL D EARLIER THE APPELLANT HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AS A PART OF THE CURRENT ASSETS IN THE TRIAL BALANCE AND SCHEDULES FILED BY HER. ALSO, ON A PERUSAL OF THE RESPECTIVE AGREEMENTS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE DEVELOP MENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN SOLD AT COST PRICE AND THEREFORE NOTHING WAS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT, AND RIGHTLY SO, IN HER COMPUTATION OF INCOME. 6 . NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VER Y OUTSET, STATED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DE CIDED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCHE C VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2013 IN ITA NO. 2892/MUM/2012 IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHANDULAL P.PATEL, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 7 ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED. COPY OF THE SAID O RDER WAS FURNISHED. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . I T IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE CO - OWNERS, SHRI CHAN DULAL P.PATEL, WHEREIN RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 8 TO 11 , VIDE ORDER DATED 23 RD AUGUST, 2013 IN ITA NO.2892/MUM/2012 , WHICH READ AS UNDER: - . 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOKS, WHICH COMPRISES OF 270 PAGES AND CONTENTS OF RELEVANT AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 6TH JUNE, 1992 AND 10TH APRIL, 1993, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND OTHERS WITH M/S JAJODIA AND PATEL PROPERTIES AS WELL AS COPIES OF THE TRIAL BALANCE, COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT, BOMBAY DATED 20TH OCTOBER, 1993 AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE OBSERVE THAT THE LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE PROPERTY IN TRIAL BALANCE FOR ALL THE YEARS FROM 2000 - 01 TO 2 005 - 06 AS PART OF STOCK IN TRADE. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR EARLIER YEAR I.E. ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE AO, HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PURCHASE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS PART OF STOCK IN TRADE. ON PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK, PLACED BEFORE US, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT THE PROPERTY WAS AFFECTED WITH INNUMERABLE COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET POSSESSION OF THE S AID PROPERTY TILL THE DATE THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED HIS RIGHTS IN THE SAID PROPERTY TO M/S JAJODIA AND PATEL PROPERTIES, VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 16TH JUNE, 2006, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGES 52 TO 90 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 10. THE ABOVE FACT IS ALSO EMPHASI ZED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER IN POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY, AS THE SAID AGREEMENTS DATED 6TH JUNE, 1992 AND 10TH APRIL, 1993 WERE ENTERED INTO ON STAMP PAPER OF RS. 10/ - AND WAS NOT REGISTERED. HENCE, THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID PROPERTY WERE NOT VALIDLY TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DVO IN HIS REPORT DATED 1ST DECEMBER, 2010, WHILE DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,30,91,000/ - HAS ALSO REFERRED TO LITIGATION ON THE PROPERTY AND ALSO POINTED OUT OTHER ENCUMBRANCES, REFERENC E OF WHICH, WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. NOT ONLY THIS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED THE AGREEMENT DATED 6TH JUNE, 1992 AND 10TH APRIL, 1993 TO REFLECT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQUIRING THE SAID ASSETS THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED ONL Y DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON THE PLOT. THE LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SAID FACTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED A NY BENEFIT OF INDEXATION IN THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ABOVE FACTS ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE SAID PROPERTY AS STOCK IN TRADE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT IF A PROPERTY IS IN THE NATURE OF STOCK IN TRADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS IT APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL ASSETS BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. FOR READY ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 9 REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS AS UNDER: WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRA NSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOP TED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIO N 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER . ON PERUSAL OF ABOVE SECTION 50C, SHOWS THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH AND THE RE IS NO REFERENCE THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS IS APPLICABLE TO STOCK IN TRADE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE SALE VALUE AS PER AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DATED 16TH JUNE, 2006, I.E. RS. 3,57,000/ - , UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE IS NOT GENUINE. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY REJECTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. 8. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE AFORESAID CASE, WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION DATED 23.08.2013 IN ITA NO.2892/MUM/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO. 5686 /MUM/201 2 . SMT.CHAMPABEN C.PATEL . 10 2007 - 2008 IN THE CASE OF ITO 8(3) - 1 V. SHRI CHANDULAL P.PATEL , MUMBAI, DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. 14 , 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( DR. S.T.M.PAVALAN ) ( N.K.SAINI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 14 TH FEBRUARY , 201 4 . DEVDAS* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT , MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A) - 20, MUMBAI. 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI