ITO 16(2)(1), MUMBAI V. VILOMA PANKAJ SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 6543/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79221 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADAGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: REEPAL G TRALSHAWALA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, SMC MUMBAI .., BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO.6541/MUM/2013: ASST.YEAR 2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(2)(1), ROOM NO.221, MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI 400 007 MRS. DEVILA PANKAJ SHAH, 804, WEST WING, SHIVTIRTH NO.2, 4/6, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 006 PAN:AAHPS 4947D ( ! / // / APPELLANT) # # # # / VS. ( $% !/ RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.31/MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6541/MUM/2013: ASST.YEAR 20 05-06) MRS. DEVILA PANKAJ SHAH, 804, WEST WING, SHIVTIRTH NO.2, 4/6, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 006 PAN:AAHPS 4947D THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(2)(1), ROOM NO.221, MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI 400 007 CROSS OBJECTOR # # # # / VS. APPELLANT IN APPEAL ITA NO.6543/MUM/2013: ASST.YEAR 2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(2)(1), ROOM NO.221, MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI 400 007 MRS. VILOMA PANKAJ SHAH, 804, WEST WING, SHIVTIRTH NO.2, 4/6, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 006 PAN:AAHPS 4935R ( ! / // / APPELLANT) # # # # / VS. ( $% !/ RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.30/MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6543/MUM/2013: ASST.YEAR 20 05-06) MRS. VILOMA PANKAJ SHAH, 804, WEST WING, SHIVTIRTH NO.2, 4/6, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 006 PAN:AAHPS 4935R THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(2)(1), ROOM NO.221, MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI 400 007 CROSS OBJECTOR # # # # / VS. APPELLANT IN APPEAL ITA NO.6541&6543/MUM/13 C.O. NO.31 & 30/MUM/14 2 REVENUE BY : SHRI B.YADAGIRI ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. REEPAL G. TRALSHAWALA # & '() / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 26.06.2014 *+, & '() / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.06.2014 - - - - / / / / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL (JM) : THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DIRECTED AG AINST COMMON ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A)-27, MUMBAI DATED 12/08/2013 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTIONS AR E IDENTICAL AND READ AS UNDER: GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.81 AT RS.43,10,000/- BASED ON VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER OF SHRI GANJAWALA. 1.A. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONS IDER THE VALUATION REPORT OF SHRI UMRIGAR APPOINTED BY THE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, WHO ADOPTED THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.8,08,000/- AS ON 01.04.1981. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.81 WAS ADOPTED BY THE DVO AT RS.29,62,000/- AS AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.43,10,000/-. GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS: 1. IN LAW & IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE HONBLE CIT(A), HAD APPROPRIATELY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ADOP T THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.43,L0,000/- BASED O N VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER, SHRI. GANJAWALA, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS CASE. 2. IN LAW & IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE HONBLE CIT(A), FAIRLY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT, THE PURPO SE OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF SHRI UMRIGAR, WAS PRIMARILY FOR FAMILY SETTLEMENT AND NO T FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAPITAL GAINS. HE ALSO RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT REFERENCE TO DVO U/S 55A AND ITS VALUATION OF RS. 29,62,000/- WAS INCORRECT, AS SPECIFICALLY HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN ONE OF THE CO- OWNERS CASE. 2. THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE ARGUED T OGETHER BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE APPEALS A ND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO.6541&6543/MUM/13 C.O. NO.31 & 30/MUM/14 3 3. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT DEPARTMENT IS AGGR IEVED BY THE RELIEF GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) AND HAS FILED AFOREMENTIONED GROUND OF A PPEAL AND IN CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE IS JUST SUPPORTING THE ORDER PASSED BY LD . CIT(A). 4. BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE CO-OWNERS OF ONE PROPERTY NAMELY, PLOT NO.105B AT SION -MATUNGA SCHEME NO.6. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS DEVOLVED UPON THESE ASSESSES AS CO-OWNERS ALONGWITH OTHER CO-OWNERS UNDER THE FA MILY SETTLEMENT AND IT WAS SOLD IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR A TOTAL CONSI DERATION OF RS.4.21 CRORES. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1/4/ 1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED T HE MATTER TO REGISTERED VALUER , WHO HAS VALUED THE SHARE OF ASSESSEE IN THE SAID P ROPERTY AT RS.43,10,000/- AS ON 1/4/1981. ACCORDINGLY, CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED A T NIL AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE MATTER WAS ALSO REFERRED TO DVO FOR DETERMINATION O F THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1/4/1981 FOR WORKING OUT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WH O VALUED THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID PROPERTY AT A SUM OF RS.29,62, 000/-. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED BY THE AO ACCORDINGLY. AGGRIEVED , ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS HELD THAT FAIR MARKET VAL UE AS ON 1/4/1981 COULD NOT BE TAKEN AT RS.29,62,000/- AS TAKEN BY THE DVO AS REFE RENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER WAS NOT CALLED FOR. HE IN THIS REGARD HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER CO-OWNER AND HE HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1/4/1981 AT RS.4 3,10,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. 5. ONE MORE FACT WHICH WILL BE RELEVANT TO DESCRIBE HERE IS THAT THERE WAS ONE VALUATION REPORT IN RELATION TO WEALTH TAX WHICH W AS OBTAINED BY THE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY VALUING THE SHARE OF THE CO-OWNER OF T HE SAID PROPERTY AS ON 1/4/1981 AT RS.8,08,000/-, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IMPUGNED AS SESSMENTS WERE RE-OPENED AND ASSESSEES HAVE CHALLENGED THE RE-OPENING ON THAT GR OUND THAT GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR THE R EASON THAT IT HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE TH AT RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS BAD IN LAW AS ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS WERE EXIS TING ON RECORD AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER AND ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE FURNISHED AS CALLED FOR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S ECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ITA NO.6541&6543/MUM/13 C.O. NO.31 & 30/MUM/14 4 ACT, 1961(THE ACT). HOWEVER, SINCE VALIDITY OR OTH ERWISE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT CHALLENGED EITHER BY THE ASSESSE E OR BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE RELEVANCE OF VALUATION ADOPTED FOR WEALTH TAX PURPO SES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE CASES. HOWEVER, DEPARTMENT IN GROUND NO.1(A) HAS R ELIED UPON THAT VALUATION WHICH HAS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF AO IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. 6. ON THESE FACTS I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. I T WAS THE COMMON CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CO NSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER CO-OWNER NAMELY SHRI JAY HARSHAD SHAH (HUF) VS. ITO AND VIDE ORDER DATED 12/7/2013 IN ITA NO.1178/MUM/2012 THE MATTER WAS RE STORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. THERE IS NO DISPUT E WITH REFERENCE TO ADOPTING VALUE AS ON 01.04.81 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COST OF ACQ UISITION AND SUBSEQUENT INDEXATION. THE ISSUE IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO VALUE TO BE ADO PTED. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF M/S. GANJAWALA AT RS .43.10 LACS WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED IN OTHER CASES AS THE AO HAS NO POWER TO R EFER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER IN A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE RELIED ON REGD. VALUERS REPORT, SO AS TO DETERMINE AT A LESSER VALUE,AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT WITH REFERENCE TO POWER OF AO FOR DETERMINING THE COST OF ACQUISITION WHEN ASSESSEE S UBMITTED HIS OWN VALUATION REPORT. THIS PRINCIPLE WAS FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF MRS. ASH A BHARAT SHAH , ANOTHER CO OWNER AND THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE COST OF ACQUI SITION AS REPORTED BY SHRI GANJAWALA. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CIT(A) CAME TO K NOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER REPORT OF SHRI UMRIGAR, WHICH WAS IN FACT ADOPTED F OR THE PURPOSE OF WEALTH TAX . EVEN THE METHOD OF VALUATION WAS ALSO DIFFERENT AS SHRI UMRIGAR DID NOT CONSIDER THE OPEN LAND WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND HAS ONLY CONSIDERED ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND VALUED PROPERTY UNDER WEALTH TAX PROVISIONS ON RENT CAPITALIZATION METHOD. THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING TO THE ABOVE VALUE ON THE REASON THAT SUCH VALUATION WAS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEALTH T AX AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS. ASSESSEE HAS EVER Y RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS ISSUE, AS CONSIDERED BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF INDI RA BAI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (42 ITD 397), WHEREIN ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS IT WAS HEL D AS UNDER :- IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED 31-3-1982, CORRESPONDIN G TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83, THE ASSESSEE SOLD A HOUSE PROPERTY FOR RS. 10.80,000 AND IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE; NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS ADMITTED FROM THIS TRANSACTION. THIS WAS EXPLAINED BY A NOTE STATING THAT DEDUCTING THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AS THE ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-1-1964 AT RS. 3 LAKH S FROM THE SALE VALUE OF RS. 10,80,000 THE CAPITAL GA INS WAS RS. 7,80,000/- AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A NEW HOUSE PROPE RTY AT RS.7 LAKHS AND INCURRED STAMP DUTY OF RS. 1 LAKH AND ALSO MADE INV ESTMENTS IN UNIT TRUST OF INDIA FOR RS. 25,000 AND IN NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIF ICATES FOR RS.2,50,000, THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT E XIGIBLE TO TAX. THE ITO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE, WITH RESP ECT TO, INTER ALIA, VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 31-3-1964. HE FOUND THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 1,30,000 AS ON 31-3-1964 FOR WEALTH-TA X PURPOSES. HE WAS, ITA NO.6541&6543/MUM/13 C.O. NO.31 & 30/MUM/14 5 THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME VALUE SHOULD B E ADOPTED FOR CAPITAL GAINS PURPOSES ALSO. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S) ALSO UPHELD THE SAID VIEW. ON SECOND APPEAL, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PRECLUDED FROM GOING BACK ON THE VALUE RETURNED AND ACCEPTED FOR WEALTH-TAX PURPOSES IN RESPECT OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE VAL UE OF THE SAME PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CAPITAL GAINS. HELD: THE REVENUES CONTENTION IMPLIED THAT THERE WAS AN ADMISSION REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY LEADING TO AN ESTOPPEL. AN A DMISSION IS A STATEMENT WHICH SUGGEST ANY INFERENCE AS TO FACT IN ISSUE BY A PERS ON HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER. BUT SUCH A STATEMENT DOES NOT AMOU NT TO AN ADMISSION WHEN IT CONSISTS MERELY OF AN OPINION OR BELIEF. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.1,30,0 00 AMOUNTED TO AN ADMISSION, IT DID NOT ESTOP HIM FROM CONTENDING OTH ERWISE IN THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH SECTION 55 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT USES THE PHRASE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 1..1.1964, AND SEC TION 7 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT USES THE PHRASE VALUE OF ANY ASSET, OTHER THAN CAS H, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, IT SHALL BE ESTIMATED TO BE THE PRICE WHICH IN THE OPINION O THE WTO IT WOULD FETCH IF SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET ON THE VALUATION DATE A ND, THUS, BOTH PRACTICALLY MEAN THE SAME. BOTH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACTS REQUIRE THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF AN ASSET WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSETS SUCH AS ITS LOCATION, ITS FEATURES, THE MARKET VALUE OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE LOCALITY AND AT WORKS, THE EXPERT OPINION OF VALUERS. STILL ANY SUCH DETERMIN ATION OF THE MARKET VALUE WILL REMAIN AN OPINION OF THE VALUER ON HYPOTHETICAL BAS IS OR AT BEST AN ESTIMATE BASED ON RELEVANT DATA. SUCH AN OPINION IS ONLY A PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHEN A SIMILAR DETERMINATION IS REQUIRED UNDER ANOTHER AC T. IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE MARK ET VALUE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ONE ACT REQUIRES CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WHEN A FRESH DETERMINATION IS REQUIRED IN THE CURRENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER FACTOR, VIZ. THAT THE PURPOS E OF AN ACT MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE PURPOSE OF OTHER ACT AND THE APPROACH TO T HE VALUATION UNDER ONE ACT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE OTHER. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE FOR THE WEALTH-TAX PURPOSES WAS A MATTER OF ROUTINE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE COMPLETE DATA AVAILABLE. MOREOVER, THE WEALTH-TAX IS A REPETITIV E TAX, AND THE VALUATION NEED NOT BE ACCURATE. IT IS ALSO WELL RECOGNIZED THAT I N THE CASE OF SELF OCCUPIED HOUSE PROPERTIES WHICH DO NOT EARN ANY INCOME, THE VALUE IS GENERALLY KEPT LOW EVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 1BB. ON THE OTHER HAND, TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS IS A ONE-TIME TAX ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 1 .1.1964. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM CONTENDING THAT THE VALUE TAK EN FOR WEALTH-TAX PURPOSES NEED NOT BE FOLLOWED FOR CAPITAL GAINS PURPOSES, TH AT VALUE TAKEN FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSES COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE ONLY ONE PI ECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH COULD BE CONTRADICTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUCING FURTHE R DATA FOR A MORE ACCURATE DETERMINATION OF THE MARKET VALUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DONE ONLY THAT BY PRODUCING THE SALE DEED RELATING TO TH E SALE OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY IN APRIL 1964 WHICH INDICATED A VALUE SIMILAR TO TH AT ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CO ULD BE REASONABLY ESTIMATED AT RS. 3 LAKHS AS ON 11.1964 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COM PUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. ITA NO.6541&6543/MUM/13 C.O. NO.31 & 30/MUM/14 6 8.2 FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN THEREIN, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REPORT GIVEN FOR THE WEALTH TAX PURPOSES NEED NOT BE CONSI DERED FOR THE INCOME TAX PURPOSES, PARTICULARLY FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. HOWE VER, THIS ASPECT WAS NOT BEFORE AO AT THE TIME OF COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ORDER IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ. P. SHAH , ACCEPTING ASSESSEE VALUATION IN THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER PASSED AFTER CIT(A) ORDER AND ALSO TWO VALUATION REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT DATED 19.04.90 VALUING PROPERTY AS ON 31 .03.87 TO 31.03.88. THESE VALUATION REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH THE WEALTH TAX REPORT OF SHRI UMRIGAR ARE TO BE CONSIDERED VIZ-A-VIZ THE REPORT OF SHRI GANJA WALA. THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION ON ADOPTING REPORT OF SHRI UMRIGAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS ALSO REQUIRED DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE AO, AS CIT(A) TOOK UPON HIMSELF WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. IN VIEW OF THESE, SINCE THE ISSUE OF ADOPTION OF VALUE UNDER SECTION 50C WAS REFERRED TO THE AO BY THE CIT(A), THIS ISSUE ALSO R EQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO. THEREFORE, BOTH ISSUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER S ECTION 50C(2) AND COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.81 FOR COMPUTING OF CAPITAL GAINS SHOUL D BE EXAMINED BY AO AFRESH. FOR THIS, THE ORDER OF THE AO IS SET ASIDE AND ISSUE RE STORED TO THE FILE OF AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO KEEP IN MIND THE ORDERS OF ITAT IN OTHE R CO-OWNER CASES AND ALSO PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN ON THE ABOVE TWO ISSUES. BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE, ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS. WITH THESE DIRE CTIONS, THE ISSUE OF GROUND NO.2 IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. GROUND CONSIDERED ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. COPY OF AFOREMENTIONED ORDER WAS PLACED ON OUR RECO RD AND WAS ALSO GIVEN TO LD. DR. IT WAS THE COMMON CONTENTION THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO SO THAT THERE MAY BE UNIFORMITY OF DECISION. 6.1 IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BO TH THE PARTIES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF DIVISION BENC H IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE CO- OWNERS, I REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO W ITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS IN BOTH THE CASES AND I DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH JUNE, 2014. - & *+, .#/ 26/06/2014 + & 5 SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; .# DATED : 26 TH JUNE, 2014. VM. ITA NO.6541&6543/MUM/13 C.O. NO.31 & 30/MUM/14 7 - & $'6 76,' - & $'6 76,' - & $'6 76,' - & $'6 76,'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. $% ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8() / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 8 / CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI 5. 6;5 $'# , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5< = / GUARD FILE. -# -# -# -# / BY ORDER, %6' $' //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // /? @ ? @ ? @ ? @ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI