Balasaheb Jadevrao Deshmukh, Nanded V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 651/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1165 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Business income; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C; 144

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 651 /PN/201 5 / ASSESSME NT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 0 9 SHRI BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH, R/O VILLAGE TARODA, TQ. & DIST. NANDED . / APPELLANT PAN: A IKPD9777B VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), NANDED . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 19 . 0 7 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 . 0 8 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I , AURANGABAD , DATED 2 7 . 03 .20 1 5 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 8 - 0 9 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 4 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE PROFIT AROSE ON SALE OF LAND AS CAPITAL GAIN WHILE INFACT IT ITA NO. 651 /PN/20 1 5 BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH 2 IS A BUSINESS INCOME AS IS SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AS WELL AS THE COMPUTATION O F THE TOTAL INCOME CLAIMING THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON LAND DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE LAYOUT OF THE PLOTS, SALE BY PLOTS ETC IN PURSUANCE OF APPELLANTS ACTIVITY OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND SOLD ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION OVERLOOKING THE LEGAL POSITION THAT SECTION 50C IS NOT ATTRACTED TO THIS LAND WHICH IS A STOCK IN TRADE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE CIT(A) WHILE HOLDING THAT THE SAID LAND SOLD WAS A CAPITAL ASSET AND NOT THE CURRENT ASSET HAS ASSIGNED IRRELEVANT REASONS. 3. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE TAXABILITY OF GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF LAND. 4. BRI EFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIDE SALE DEED DATED 11.01.2008 HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING GAT NO.177, ADMEASURING 46R FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 LAKHS. THE SAID LAND WAS SITUATED WITHIN TH E NANDED MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. AS PER THE SAID LAND WAS SITUATED WITHIN TH E NANDED MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE VALUE OF SAID LAND WAS RS.50,20,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WERE TO BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SINCE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF LAND WAS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF STAMP DUTY. FINAL OP PORTUNITY BY WAY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT RS.50,20,000/ - AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED DATED ITA NO. 651 /PN/20 1 5 BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH 3 11.01.2008 AT RS. 5 LAKHS . THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS SHOWN AT RS.NIL. THE ASSESSEE HAD HALF SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND HENCE, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.25,10,000/ - . 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WERE NOT TO BE APPLIE D SINCE THE LAND WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN STOCK - IN - TRADE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE INCOME RETURNED AT RS.1,08,120/ - CONSISTING OF BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.82,300/ - AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.25,817/ - SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS AGAINST THE ASSESSED I NCOME OF RS.25,10,000/ - . THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 5.1 AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER . IN BRIEF HISTORY OF CASE, T HE A SSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT TARODA TQ. DIST. NANDED ALONG WITH FAMILY MEMBERS. HE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME WAS TO CARRY ON HIS DAY - TO - DAY ACTIVITIES WAS HIS AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT. WITH REGARD TO HIS OWNERSHIP OF 46R LAND, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID LAND WAS ADJOINING TO NANDED CITY AND THE AREA OF LAND HAD ALREADY DEVELOPED AND WITH MOTIVATION OF MORE PROFITS, THE INTENTION WAS TO DEVELOP THE SAID LAND INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CONVERT THE SAME INTO PLOTS AND SELL THE SAID PLOTS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT B OTH THE OWNERS HAD EXECUTED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 31.12.2001 ON BOND PAPER OF RS.20/ - , WHICH WAS DULY NOTARIZED. THE ASSESSEE THUS, CLAIMS THAT THE INTENTION WAS TO CONVERT THE CAPITAL ASSET INTO BUSINESS ASSET TO EARN MORE PROFITS. THE LEARN ED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ILLITERATE PERSON, THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A), WITH REGARD TO WHICH THE CIT(A) ASKED ITA NO. 651 /PN/20 1 5 BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH 4 FOR THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR PERMISSION OF NA LAYOUT OF PLOTS AND ALSO IN THE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HENCE, NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT HE HAD CONVERTED THE LAND HELD AS CAPITAL ASSET INTO BUSINESS ASSET ON 31.12.2001 AS PER DULY NOTARIZED MOU ON STAMP PAPER OF RS.20/ - . THE RELEVANT PORTION OF MOU IS REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) AT PAGES 7 AND 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE CIT(A) AT THE FIRST JUNCTURE CONSIDERED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER , WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF CONVERSION OF LAND INTO BUSINESS ASSET IN THE YEAR 2001 AND THEREAFTER, MOU WAS EXECUTED ON 31.12.2001 BETWEEN THE CO - OWNERS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE NOTARIZE D AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 31.08.2007 ABOUT THE PROPOSED SALE OF LAND ADMEASURING 1800 SQ.FT. THE CIT(A) FROM THE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 11.01.2008 OF THE IMPUGNED LAND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AT GAT NO.177, ADMEASURING 46R. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED FROM THE SALE DEED THAT ON ALL THE SIDES OF ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL LAND, THERE WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF OTHER FARMERS. FURTHER, 7/12 EXTRACT OF THE SAID LAND WAS ATTACHED TO SALE DEED. IT WAS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE SAID LAND WA S UNDER CULTIVATION IN AGRICULTURAL YEARS 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 AND THE CROP GROWN WAS SOYABEAN. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS UNDER CULTIVATION AND CROP HAD BEEN GROWN IN THE SAID L AND UP TO THE YEAR OF SALE AND THE SAID LAND WAS NOT CONVERTED INTO NA LAND AND HENCE PLOTTING OF THE SAID LAND WAS NOT POSSIBLE. AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO BUSINESS ASSET IN THE YEAR 2001, THE CIT(A) ITA NO. 651 /PN/20 1 5 BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH 5 OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO - OWNERS HAD NOT TAKEN ANY STEPS TO ACTUALLY CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO BUSINESS ASSET. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PERMISSION RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING PLOTTED THE SAID LAND AND NOT PREPARING INTERNAL ROADS IN THE IMPUGNED LAND, AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTINUED TO CULTIVATE THE SAID LAND AND HAD GROWN CROPS UPTO THE YEAR OF SALE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FACTUALLY NOT CONVERTED THE IMPUG NED AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO BUSINESS ASSET. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND CONSIDERING THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBJECTE D FOR ADOPTING THE SAID VALUE EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THEN THE VALUE SO ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS TAKEN AS TO BE THE SALE CONSIDERATION. WITH REGARD TO THE C ASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN TAKING INDEXED COST OF LAND ON NIL WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED ON 06.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSIDERED THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 A T RS.10,000/ - PER ACRE. THEREFORE, THE LAND ADMEASURING 46R WORKED OUT TO RS.11,500/ - AND THE INDEXED COST WAS TAKEN AT RS.63,365/ - AND THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS COMPUTED AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDEXED COST OF LAND AT RS.63,365/ - . THE NET LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS WORKED OUT TO RS.49,56,635/ - AND 50% OF SHARE IN THE SAME AT RS.24, 78,318/ - WAS WORKED OUT AS INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ITA NO. 651 /PN/20 1 5 BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH 6 7. THE FIRST ISSU E RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF PROFIT ARISING ON SALE OF LAND AS CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE RELATED PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN ADOPTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHERE THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS HELD AS STOCK - IN - TRADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS HELD AS STOCK - IN - TRADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS CO - OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT THE SAID LAND WAS HELD AS BUSINESS ASSET AND HENCE, THE GAIN ARISING THEREFROM IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS, SINCE IT WAS ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF LAND DEVELOPED AND NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE INCURRED FOR THE SAME. THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, IS THE YEAR OF SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REJOINDER FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED AT PAGES 6 AND 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT ONE PLOT WAS INTENDED TO BE SOLD . 10 . ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, THE ISSUE ARISING IN T HE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSABILITY OF THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO. 651 /PN/20 1 5 BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH 7 THE OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED WITHIN NANDED MUNICIPAL COUNCIL . THE ASSESSEE AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 11.01.2008, H AD SOLD THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 LAKHS. HOWEVER, STAMP VALUATION OFFICER RE - VALUED THE COST OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ADOPTED THE SAME AT RS.50,20,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD HALF SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY I.E. TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,10,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ON THE PREMISE THAT THE STAMP VALUATION VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE SLATED SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS TOTAL NON - COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE INCOME BY ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.50,20,000/ - AND BY TAKING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.25,10,000/ - . BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID LAND WAS NOT HIS PERSONAL ASSET BUT WAS BUSINESS ASSET AND WAS HELD AS STOCK - IN - TRADE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EVIDENCES COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE RECITALS IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 11.01.2008 REFLECTED THAT THE LAND HELD BY BOTH THE CO - OWNERS WAS JOINTLY HELD AS AGRICULTURAL LAND, ON WHICH AGRICULTURAL OPERAT IONS WERE BEING CARRIED OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH CLAIMS THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO MOU WITH THE CO - OWNER TO DEVELOP THE LAND INTO SMALL PLOTS AND SELL THE SAME SINCE THE RESIDENTIAL COLONY HAD DEVELOPED IN THE AREA. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FROM THE YEAR 2001 TILL THE DATE OF SALE I.E. THE YEAR 2008 HAD NOT OBTAINED ANY NA PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHORITIES IN ORDER TO CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND / OR SUB - DIVIDED THE SAME INTO PLOTS. T HE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING TH E AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THE CIT(A) NOTED FROM 7/12 EXTRACTS THAT THE ITA NO. 651 /PN/20 1 5 BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH 8 ASSESSEE HA D SHOWN AGRICULTURAL CROP BEING GROWN DURING THE YEARS 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 I.E. TILL BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE OF PLOT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED FOR SALE OF PORTION OF TOTAL LAND. HOWEVER, NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE SAID EVIDENCE AS FIRST OF ALL, IT IS AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT. SECONDLY, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEI VED ANY PERMISSION FOR CONVERTING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEN FURTHER SUB - DIVIDING THE SAME INTO PLOTS, THEN THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD SOLD ANY ONE PLOT OUT OF LARGER AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID LAND OWNED BY HIM W AS BUSINESS ASSET. THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WAS SOLD AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ITS SALE PROC EEDS ARE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING OF THE LAND HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN OBTAINING NA PE RMISSION FOR CHANGE IN USER OF LAND, THE SAID MOU AT BEST IS SELF SERVING DOCUMENT AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE OTHER LANDS SURROUNDING THE AREA OF ASSESSEE ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CL AIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND AROUND ITS AREA HAD DEVELOPED INTO RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN VALUED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AT RS.25,10,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SAID VALUATION AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS TO BE ADOPTED AT RS.25,10,000/ - AS AGAINST RS.5 LAKHS ITA NO. 651 /PN/20 1 5 BALASAHEB JAGDEVRAO DESHMUKH 9 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 6 . SD/ - (SUSHMA C HOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 5 TH AUGUST , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPO NDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I , AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE PR. CIT - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE