Deputy ssistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Smt. Tehmi Aspi Anklesaria, Pune

ITA 59/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7016 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.59/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE. . / APPELLANT V/S SMT. TEHMI ASPI ANKLESARIA SHRI KRISHNA HARIBHAU LOHOKARE 19, UNITED APARTMENTS, EAST STREET, PUNE 411 001. PAN : ADYPA9272B. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR. REVENUE BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - II, PUNE DT. 1 4.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAINS. ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09 ON 30.03.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.72,64,890/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 AND T HE TOTAL / DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.12.2017 2 INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,11,52,337/-. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.14.10.2014 GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSES SEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPE AL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VALUATION REPO RT GIVEN ON 14.04.2008 AND NEGLECTING THE READY RECKONER RATES AS GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ALLOWING ASSESSEES APP EAL OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.67,78,725/- INSTEAD OF RS.2,06,66,172/- WORKED OUT BY THE AO. 2) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED ON THIS ISSUE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTIC ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED DEVELOPMENTAL RIGHTS OF A LAND LOCATED AT SY.NO.162 AT VILLAGE MANJARI BK. TO PARMAR INDUS ASSOCIATES THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF WHICH WAS RS.4.12 CR ORE AND THE VALUATION AS PER STAMP DUTY WAS RS.6.21 CRORE. SIN CE THE LAND WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER SON, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED HER SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT HALF OF THE RATE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION RATE I.E., AT RS.3,10,05,000/-. ASSE SSEE PRODUCED THE VALUATION REPORT FOR VALUING THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981. THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE WAS REJECTED BY THE AO INTER-ALIA FOR THE REASON THAT THE R EPORT WAS NOT SCIENTIFIC, THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE VALUER WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AS ACCORDING TO AO HE HAD NOT CONSIDERED TH E COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES. AO THEREAFTER, ON THE BASIS OF READY RECKONER RATES OF 1989 DETERMINED THE RATE OF LAND AT R S.60 PER SQ. MTRS BEING THE FAIR RATE AND ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT TH E TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.2,06,66,172/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER O F AO, 3 ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE CONTESTE D BY THE APPELLANT PERTAINS TO THE REJECTION OF THE APPROVED VALUER'S REPORT AS ON 1-4-1981 BY THE ASSESSINQ OFFICER WITHOUT ANY VA LID REASONS. THE FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT TRANSFE RRED THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF A LAND SITUATED AT S.NO 162 A T VILLAGE MANJRI BK TO PARMAR INDUS ASSOCIATES. THE APPELLANT IS SEE N TO HAVE ADOPTED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF RS. 6,21,00,000 /- AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OF RS. 4,12 ,00,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE APPEL LANT, HOWEVER, ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION I.E. THE FAIR MARKE T VALUE AS ON 1-4- 1981 AS DETERMINED BY SHRI. G L KULKARNI, REGISTERE D VALUER AND SHRI. A.K. JADKAR, APPROVED VALUER AT RS. 280 PER S Q. METERS IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM DATED 14-04-2008 AND THE SAID VALUA TION WAS UTILIZED FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS WHICH TH E APPELLANT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT ALS O FURNISHED THE SAID REPORT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THAT THE SAID REPORT SUFFERED FROM SEVERE LIMITATIONS AND WAS NOT SCIENTIFIC AND THE SAME WAS THEREFORE, REJECTED AND THE VALUE OF T HE LAND AS ON 1- 4-1981 WAS ADOPTED AT RS. 60 PER SQ.MTRS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF PUNE ITAT IN THE CASE OF KRISHNABAI TINGRE VS ITO A ND AJIT J MEHTA VS JCIT CITED SUPRA. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE DECISIO NS RELIED UPON THAT THE FORMER RELATES TO A LAND SITUATED AT VADGAONSHE RI, PUNE AND THE LATTER TO AT SASOON ROAD, PUNE WHICH PRIMA FACIE CA NNOT BE HELD TO BE COMPARABLE CASES RELATED TO A LAND AT MANJRI BK. IT IS RELEVANT THAT THE CONTEXT OF VALUATION RELATES TO THE TIME P ERIOD OF 1981 AND NOT PRESENT DAY WHEN THE APPELLANTS LAND AT MANJRI WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A PROSPEROUS AREA IN PUNE DISTRICT AGRICULTURALLY WHERE THOSE AT VADGAONSHERI AND SASOON ROAD DID NOT HAVE ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY NOR HAD ANY COMMERCIAL POTENT IAL AT THAT POINT OF TIME. THE APPELLANT'S LAND AT MAJRI HAS BEEN A R ICH AGRICULTURAL AREA SUBMERGED BY CANALS AND EXCELLENT WATER TABLE, BORE CASH CROPS LIKE SUGARCANE WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS BEING CUL TIVATED AND THE PRODUCE TRANSPORTED TO THE SUGAR MILL AT THEUR. THE LAND AT VADGAONSHERI AND SASOON ROAD HAD DEVELOPED MUCH LAT ER AS RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS. THESE FACTS IS SE EN TO HAVE ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE VALUER IN THEIR REPORT. MOR EOVER, THE INDEX II DATED 7-2-2008 CLEARLY SHOWS THE SAID LAND TO BE IN A 'NIWASI' (RESIDENTIAL) ZONE WHICH CERTAINLY ADDED MORE VALUE TO THE LAND. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT VADGAONSHE RI IS CLOSE TO PUNE CITY LIMITS THAN THE LAND OF THE APPELLANT, THE SAID LAND IS ALSO NOT VERY FAR FROM THE LIMITS OF THE PUNE CITY AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAS ADOPTED THE FMV OR FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS. 60 PER SQ MTRS AND DISREGARDED THE VALUATION REPORT BY A GOVT. APPROVE D VALUERS AND ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WHO HAD TAKEN THE F MV AS ON 1-4-1981 AT RS. 280 PER SQ MTRS. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS SEEN TO HAVE RELIED UPON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUER IN A DIFFERENT CASE AND PERTAINING TO THE VADGAONSHERI AND SASOON AREA AND HAS HIMSELF NOT REFERRED THE MATTER OF VALUATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, IS SEEN TO HAVE GOT THE VAL UATION AS ON 01- 04-1981 FROM THE GOVT. APPROVED VALUERS WHO HAVE CE RTIFIED THE 4 VALUATION AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS. 280 PER SQ.MTR. B ASED UPON WHICH THE INDEXED VALUE HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE APP ELLANT FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN. THUS THE MATERIAL ON RECORD POINT OUT TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE VALUA TION OFFICER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN FORMED AN OPINION AS CONTEMPLATED BY SEE 55A AND THE FMV AS O N 1-4-1981 ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT LESS THAN THE VALUA TION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AD OPTED THE VALUATION WHICH IS NOT BASED UPON A REPORT OF VALUA TION AS ON 1-4-1981 OF THE APPELLANT'S LAND RATHER THE SAME IS BASED ON INFERENTIAL PRESUMPTION. 3.6 SECTION 55A EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ORDER FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF ANY CAPITAL A SSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER IV-E OF THE ACT. THE CIRCUMSTAN CES UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE V ALUATION OFFICER HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. NITIN JAY ANTILAL SHAH (2012) 44(II) ITCL 113 AHD (TRIB), IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 55A CLEARLY HAS TWO LIMBS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (A) AND CL AUSE (B). CLAUSE (A) CAN BE INVOKED WHEN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY IS MORE THAN THE VALUATION DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. CLAUSE (B ) CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN VALUATION REPORT FROM REGISTERED VALUER HAS NOT BEEN FILED. THE OPENINQ PHRASE IN CLAUSE (B) IS 'I N ANY OTHER CASE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION'. IN OTHER WORDS, A CASE WHICH DOES NOT FALL IN CLAUSE (A) I.E. THE REGISTER ED VALUER HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 AND WHICH IS NO T LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981 TH EN SUB CLAUSE (B) CAN BE INVOKED. IN ANY CASE, CLAUSE (B)(I) CAN BE I NVOKED ONLY IF FMV OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE AS CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE BY SUCH PERCENTAGE AS MAY BE OF ACQUISITION PRESCRIBED AND CLAUSE (B)(II) CAN BE INVOKED IN RESIDUARY CASES AND THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CAN REFER THE PROPERTY TO THE DVO HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET AND OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ABOVE V IEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIRABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH VS ITO (2009) 310 ITR 31 (G UJ) AND ALSO IN THE MUMBAI ITAT DECISION IN SAJJANKUMAR M HARAKH VS JT CIT (2006) 284 ITR (AT) 156 (MUMBAI TRIB).THE PROVISION S OF SEC 55A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 FR OM 1-7-2012 TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WHERE IN HIS OPINION THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT VARIANCE FROM THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE AMENDED SE C 55A(A) WOULD EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER T O THE VALUATION OFFICER WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1-4-1981 IS HIGHER THAN THE FMV OF THE ASSET AS ON THAT DATE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1/4/1981 ADOP TED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS. 280 PAR SQ.MTR. BASED ON THE VALUA TION REPORT OF THE VALUER TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE AGAINST WHICH THE AO ES TIMATED THE VALUE OF LAND TO BE ADOPTED AT RS. 60 PER SQ.MTR. F OLLOWING THE VALUATION ADOPTED IN THE CASES RELATING TO VADGAONS HERI AND SASOON ROAD AREA AND ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE IND EXED COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. 3 .7 THUS, FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION IT IS SEEN THAT THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF SECTION 55A AS IS EVIDE NT FROM ITS TERMS, IS CONFINED TO THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF TRANSFER . UNDER THIS SECTION WHERE THE A.O. IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE V ALUE OF THE ASSET AS 5 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE ESTIMATE MADE BY A REGISTERED VALUER IS LESS THAN THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE, HE MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A V ALUATION OFFICER. HE CAN ALSO DO SO WHERE IN OTHER CASES HE IS OF THE OP INION THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS SO CLAIMED OR BY MORE THAN SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AS PER RULE 111A OF WEALTH TAX RULES IN THIS BEHALF, OR, THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASPECT AND OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY SO TO DO. H OWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER FOR VALUATION BUT HAS MERELY RELIED UPON THE RESULT OF THE REFERRAL MADE IN A DIFFERENT CASE AND HAS COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE VALUATION REPORT AS ON 01.04.1981 ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT AN D COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE GOVT . APPROVED VALUER, AS THE A.O. HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAK EN A HIGHER FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF IN DEXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HAS NOT DOUBTED OR CHAL LENGED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER AS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SEEN THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ASSUMES POWERS U/S 55A(A) ONLY WHEN IN HIS/HER OPIN ION THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS AND IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF HEL D THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE MORE WHICH IS ALREADY AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT. IN THI S CONTEXT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ASSUMES I MPORTANCE WHICH IS DISCUSSED HEREUNDER. IN THE CASE OF PUNE ITAT OF KRISHNABAI TINGRE (2006) 101 ITR 317 (PUNE) WHICH IS ON THE I SSUE OF REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 55A IN SUCH CASES WHE RE THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHER THAN THE FA IR MARKET VALUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH IN DETAIL BY THE HON'BLE THIRD MEMBER DECISION IN THE CASE OF MS. RUBAB M. K AZERANI VS JOINT CIT(2004) 91 ITD 429 (MUM)(TM) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMES POWER UNDER SECTION 55A(A) ONLY WHEN IN HIS OPINION THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS. TH ERE WAS ONE MORE ARGUMENT OF REVENUE THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ANY OTHER C ASE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 55A(B). ON CAREFUL PERUSA L OF THE AFORESAID THIRD MEMBER DECISION, NEITHER THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CAN ASSUME P OWER TO GIVE SUCH A DIRECTION WHERE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED UPON THE APPROVE D VALUER'S REPORT. THE WORDINGS OF CLAUSE (B) ARE SUC H THAT 'IN ANY OTHER CASE, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET, IT IS NEC ESSARY SO TO DO. SO, IN THE CASES OTHER THAN THE CASE WHERE THER E IS NO VALUER'S REPORT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 55A(B) AN D NOT OTHERWISE. THUS, THE ISSUE WAS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF MS RUBAB M. KEZERENI'S CASE (SUPRA)' THUS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT REFERENCE TO DVO CAN BE MADE U/S 55A(A) ONLY WHEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE 6 DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT BASED UPON APPROVED VALUER'S REPORT. 3.8 FURTHER IN THE DECISION OF ITO VS. SMT VIJAYA CHANDRAKANT TUPE CITED SUPRA AND ALSO RELIED UPON BY THE APPELL ANT THE PUNE ITAT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 2.5 WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO RELY ON THE R EPORT OF THE D.V.O OBTAINED IN THE CASE OF OTHER PERSON. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT, AS WAS ON THE STATUTE PRIOR TO 01.07.2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO P OWER TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE VALUATIO N ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESSER THAN THE VIEW WH AT ASSESSING OFFICER BELIEVES TO BE. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- A) CIT VS. DAULAL MOHTA HUF (2014) 360 ITR 680 (BOM). B) CIT VS. RAMANKUMAR SURI (255 CTR 257) C) CIT V PUJA PRINTS (2014) 360 ITR 697 (BOM). D) M.V. SHAH, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, ANANT MILLS LTD VS. U. J. MATAIN & ANR. (1994) 209 1TR 568 (GUJ). E) ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF KRISHNABAI TINGRE VS. ITO 1 ITD 317.' ' ... IN THIS REGARD, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED OR CHALLENGED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER AS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN FORMED AN OPINION AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 55A OF THE ACT. THE FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED UPON THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED APPROVED VA LUER. THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LESS THAN THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT ITA T, PUNE IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SANGEETA JEEVAN BHOSALE IN ITA NO.1125/PN/2012 DATED 30.05.2014 AND IN THE CASE O F RAMDAS SONBA TUPE VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 534/PN/2013 DA TED 08.07.2014 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 6. IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT HAS EX A MINED THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE REFERENCE U/S. 55A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SEC. 55A (A) AND HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE FIND THAT S, 55A(A) OF THE ACT VERY CLEARLY AT THE RELEVANT TIME PROVIDED THAT A REFERENCE COULD BE MA DE TO THE DVO ONLY WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE PRESENT CAS E, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED 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 REFE RRED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DVO ONLY BECAUSE IN HIS VIEW THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1981 AS MADE BY THE 7 RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INVOCATI ON OF S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8. THE CO N TENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDME N T TO S. 55A ( A) OF THE ACT IN 2012 BY WHICH THE WORDS 'IS LESS T HAN T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE' ARE SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORDS 'IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE ' IS CLARIFIACTORY AND SHOULD BE G I V E N R ETROSPECTIVE EFFECT . THIS SUBMISSION IS IN FACE OF THE F A CT TH A T T HE 2012 AMENDMENT WAS -MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM 1 S T J UL Y, 2 012 . TH E PARLIAMENT HAS NOT GIVEN RET R OSPECTIVE E F F E CT T O T HE A MENDMENT, AW TO BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS S . 55A( A ) O F T HE ACT A S EXISTING DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE A . Y . 200 6 - 07 . AT THE RELEVANT TIME, VERY CLEARLY REFERENCE COULD BE MADE T O DVO ONLY IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS I N THE OP I NION O F THE AO LE S S THAN ITS FARE 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)( I I) [55A(B)(II) ] OF THE ACT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT S. 5 5 A(B) OF THE ACT VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT IT WOULD APP L Y IN ANY OTHER CASE I.E . A CASE NOT COVERED BY S. 55A(A) OF THE A C T . IN THIS CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTABLE POSITION THAT T HE ISSUE IS COV E R E D B Y S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT . THEREFORE, RESORT CANNOT BE HA D TO T HE RESIDUARY C LAUSE PROVIDED IN S . 55A(B)(II) OF THE ACT . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CBDT CIRCULAR DT . 25TH NOV., 1972 CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE FACE OF T HE CLEAR POSITION IN LAW . THIS IS SO AS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS BY THE REVENUE A S FOUND IN CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS RIOT BINDING UPON THE A SSESSEE AND IT IS OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO CONTEND TO T HE C ONTRARY . IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH (SUPRA) THE H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : 10. UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE VA LUATION OFFICER IN A CASE WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE MAD E BY THE REGISTERED VALUER, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF T HE OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE. IN ANY OTHER CASE, AS PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SEC TION 55A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD AN OPINION THAT (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 AN AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; OR (II) HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET AND OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY TO MA KE SUCH A REFERENCE. 11. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL (ANNEX. D) FROM RESPONDENT NO. 2'DVO TO THE PETITIONER INSO FAR AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981 IS CONCERNED, THE PETITIONER HAD CLAIMED THE SAME AT A SUM OF 8 RS. 6,25,000 AS PER REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO FORM AN OPINION T HAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE . THE ESTIMATED 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 1-4-1981. THEREFORE, CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE. CLAUSE (B ) OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN ANY O THER CASE, NAMELY WHEN THE VALUE OF THE ASSET CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY AN ESTIMATE MADE BY A REGISTERE D VALUER. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, CLAUSE (B) OF SEC TION 55A OF THE ACT ALSO CANNOT BE INVOKED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HAVING RECOURSE TO SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF C LAUSE (B) OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT. 12. THERE IS ONE MORE ASPECT OF THE MATTER. FOR INV OKING SECTION 55A OF THE ACT, THERE HAS TO BE A CLAIM MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN RECORD O PINION EITHER UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 55 A OF THE ACT TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE GO TO SHOW THAT THE REFERENCE WAS MADE ON 26- 4-1996, WHEREAS, THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 27-8-1996. HENCE, ON THE DATE OF M AKING THE REFERENCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO CLAIM WA S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HA VE FORMED ANY OPINION AS TO EXISTENCE OF PRESCRIBED DIFFERENC E BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THEREFORE ALSO, PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 55A OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESORTED TO BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 8. IN OUR OPINION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER T O MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR THE A. Y. 2007-08 BY INVOKING U/S. 55A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARK ET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 ON THE OPINION THAT FMV MUST BE LESS THAN AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE ISSUE HAS B EEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE SAME AN D GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ' 3.8.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE RATIO OF T HE AFORESAID DECISIONS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT TH AT NO REFERENCE COULD BE MADE BY THE AO IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS FOUND TO BE ACCE PTABLE. 3.9 FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE VA LUE DETERMINED BY APPROVED VALUER AS ON 1-4-1981 AND THE APPELLANT HA S ALSO EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS ARRIVED AT THE FMV AS ON 1-4-1981 OF THE ASSET NAMELY THE LAND AT MAJRI BK, PUNE. WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BORROWED AN D RELIED UPON THE VALUATION OF AN ASSET BELONGING TO ANOTHER ASSE SSEE IN DISTANT VADGAONSHERI AND SASSOON ROAD PUNE WHICH FALLS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THAT OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISREGARDED THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE CASE OF MRS. SUS AMMA PAULOSE 9 VS JCIT CITED SUPRA, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT REPORT O F THE REGISTERED VALUER IS A VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN DECIDING MAT TERS OF VALUATION AND SUCH REPORT CAN BE MODIFIED, QUESTIONED OR REBU TTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF RELIABLE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE' WITH HIM. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER. ..A REGISTERED VALUER IS COMPETENT TO VALUE PROPE RTIES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT AND RULES MADE THE REUNDER. THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN BRUSHING ASIDE THE REPOR T OF THE REGISTERED VALUER WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR THAT. THE AD DID NOT HAVE ANY MATERIALS WITH HIM TO REBUT THE VALUATION WORKED OUT BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THE AD WAS REJECTING THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER WITH A STROKE OF PEN AS IF THE LAW DOES NOT RECOGNISE THE VALUATION MADE BY A REGISTERED VALUER. THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE AO IS QUITE UNLAWFUL AND ARBITRARY. THE REPORT OF A REGISTERED VALUER IS A VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN DECIDING MATTERS OF VALU ATION. SUCH REPORT CAN BE MODIFIED OR QUESTIONED OR REBUTTED BY THE AO ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF RELIABLE MATERIALS AVAILABLE W ITH HIM. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ,AO HIMSELF HAS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER TO VALUATION. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE ERRED IN COMING TO TH EIR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981. FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981, ESTIMATED BY A REGISTERED VALUER BEING BASED ON SOUND FACTUAL BASIS AND THE PHENOMENAL DEVELOPMENT IN THA T AREA COULD NOT BE REJECTED BY THE AO WITHOUT ASSIGN ING ANY SPECIFIC REASONS' 3.10 FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF PYARE MOHAN MATHUR HUF VS ITO CITED SUPRA THE HON. ITAT HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 55A ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE NECESSARY E VIDENCE BY WAY OF THE VALUATION REPORT MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER, THE ONUS GETS SHIFTED ON THE AO TO CONTRADICT THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER. THE REGISTERED VALUATION OFFICER IS A TECHN ICAL EXPERT AND T HE OPINION OF AN EXPERT CANNOT BE THROWN . OU T WI T H O U T B R INGING ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY ON RECORD . IN C A SE T HE A O W AS N OT AGREEABLE WITH THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER, HE WAS DU TY BOUN D TO RE FE R T H E MATTER TO TH E DVO F O R DETERMINING THE F A IR MARKET VALUE OF T HE LAND AS ON WHICH HE FAILED TO DO SO. THE TRIBUNAL H ELD THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS BUT MERELY REJECTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTED THE CAPITA L GAIN AFTER TAKING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1/4/1981, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS O N 1/4/1981 ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER BEING BASED ON S OUND FACTUAL BASIS AND THE PHENOMENAL DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA C OULD NOT BE REJECTED BY THE AO WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY SPECIFIC R EASONS. 3.11 IN THE CASE OF CWT VS RAGHUNATH SINGH THAKUR ALSO R ELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT AGREE WITH T HE REPORT REGARDING THE VALUER RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, R EJECTION OF SUCH VALUER'S REPORT WITHOUT MAKING REFERENCE TO THE VAL UATION, ORDER IS INVALID AND THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER SHA LL BE ACCEPTED. THE AHEMDABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF PREMILA M DESAI, HUF VS DCIT RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT THE TRIBUNAL RELYING U PON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING RAVINDRA SHETH VS ACIT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 10 'IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDINGS ON THIS ASPECT , THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ALSO, THE SAME TRIBUNAL DECISION REND ERED IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA H. SETH (SUPRA), SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE AS PER THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION, THE REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER BEING TECHNICAL PERSON. IN THE PR ESENT CASE, NO SUCH REPORT OF ANY TECHNICAL PERSON HAS 8 I. TAN0.04/ AHD/2012 BEEN OBTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND , THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THE ACTION OF LD. , CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FARE MARKET VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS ON 1/4/1981 AS DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE. ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER, C ANNOT BE DISTURBED AND THE SAME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. ' 3.12 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT AND THE RATIO OF THE JUDI CIAL DECISION THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE TENABLE AND THEREFORE THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US. LD.D.R. TOOK US THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUER WHILE VALUING THE LAND H AS NOT RELIED UPON ONLY COMPARABLE SALES INSTANCES BUT HAD ADOP TED THE READY RECKONER RATE FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION HE POINTED TO PAGES 1 TO 9 OF TH E VALUATION REPORT PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ANOTHER REPORT DATED 06.01.2014 BEFORE LD.C IT(A) BUT THE SAME REPORT WAS NEVER MADE AVAILABLE TO AO TO OFFER HIS COMMENTS. HE FURTHER PLACED THE READY RECKONER RATES AND SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS IGNORED THE READY RECKONER RATES. HE, FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VASINDER KUM AR VS. CIT (2012) 20 TAXMANN.COM 241 (P & H) FOR THE PROPOSITION T HAT IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE AO OR CIT(A) TO HAVE ACCEPT ED THE 11 REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER MERELY BECAME THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE REPORT OF VALUER. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DAYA SINGH VS. CIT (2010) 2 TAXMANN .COM 267 (P & H), SMT KRISHNABAI TINGRE VS. ITO (2006) ITD 317 (PUNE). 5. LD.A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND TOOK US THROUGH THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND POINTED TO THE LOCATION OF LAND REPRODUCED BY CIT(A) IN THIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E LAND HAD HADAPSAR & MANJARI AS BOUNDARY AND THOUGH IT WAS STA TED TO BE IN MANJARI BUT WAS CLOSE TO PUNE AND IN SUCH A SITUATION, TH E VALUER HAS CORRECTLY ADOPTED THE RATE FOR VALUATION. WITH RESP ECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF LD.D.R. THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE READY RECKONER RATES, HE POINTING TO THE COPY OF THE RATE SUB MITTED THAT THE RATES STATED THEREIN WERE FOR THE LAND WHICH WAS N OT USED FOR AGRICULTURE AND HAD LESS DEMAND. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON T HE CONTRARY, THE LAND OF ASSESSEE WAS WELL IRRIGATED LAND AND ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY AND HAD GOOD DEMAND. WITH RESPECT TO THE S UBMISSION OF LD.DR THAT FOR 2 ND REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) AND FOR WHICH NO COMMENTS WERE OBTAINED FROM AO, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE 2 ND REPORT WAS A CLARIFICATORY REPORT OBTAINED AT THE INSISTENCE OF LD.CIT(A). HE, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY LD.DR ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND THEREFO RE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. HE, THUS, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASES IS WIT H RESPECT TO VALUATION OF THE LAND THAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN 12 UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE LAND THAT WAS SOLD BY ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRED / PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE PRIOR TO 1981 AND TH EREFORE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION THE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 HAS T O BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. IT IS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE LAND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH LOCATED IN MANJARI VILLAGE BUT IS CLOSE TO PUNE AND TOUCHING THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORAT ION (PMC). THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY REVENUE. WE, FURTHER FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) H AS GIVEN A FINDING THAT AO HAD RELIED UPON THE RATE PERTAINING TO VADGONSHERI & SASOON AREA WHICH CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A COMPARABLE CASE AS THE LAND IS AT MANJARI BK. WE FIND T HAT LD.CIT(A) BY A DETAILED ORDER REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF AO. THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE WRONG OR FALLACIOUS. FURTHER, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY REVENUE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF TH E AFORESAID, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 6 TH DECEMBER, 2017. YAMINI 13 #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-II, PUNE. CIT-II, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $,-./ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /01%2&3 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.