Income-tax Officer, V. Shri Dhirandra Mahendraprasad Mehra, Jalna

ITA 672/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1943 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: B; J P BAIRAGRA JAIN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 43CA; 50C; 56(2); 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.672/PN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ITO, WARD-1(3) , JALNA . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI DHIRENDRA MAHENDRAPRASAD MEHRA, CONGRESS BHAVAN, S.D. ROAD, JALNA PAN NO.AJFPM4688J . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.674/PN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ITO, WARD-1(3) , JALNA . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI SURENDRA SHRIRANGPRASAD MEHRA, CONGRESS BHAVAN, S.D. ROAD, JALNA PAN NO.ABEPM0318C . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. BAIRAGRA JAIN & B / DATE OF HEARING :28.03.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:15.04.2016 2 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 31-01-2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN BOT H THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE B EING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.672/PN/2014 (MR. DHIRENDRA MAHENDRAPRASAD MEH RA) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S. MEHRA AND COMPANY, JALGAON. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18-08-2011 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12,25,500/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE SALE D EED DATED 25-02-2010 EXECUTED BEFORE THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR (CLASS 2) JALNA-1 HAS SOLD THE LAND SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.44 TO THE EXTENT OF 1 HECTOR 23R FOR RS.88,65,000/- TO M/S. OM SAI RAM STEEL A ND ALLOYS PVT. LTD., JALNA. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOS E OF STAMP DUTY WAS ALSO DETERMINED BY THE STATE GOVT. AUTH ORITIES AT RS.88,65,000/-. 2.1 ON GOING THROUGH THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN SUBSTANTIAL COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 A T RS.12,76,576/- AND INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.80,67,960 /-. AFTER REDUCING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS.80,67,9 60/- FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.88,65,000/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.7,97,040/-. TO 3 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.12,76,576 THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE DATED 03- 09- 2010 FROM SHRI C.V. CHANDEKAR, GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER . THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, FOR ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981, APPLIED AND CALCULATED THE REDUCT ION FACTOR FOR THE VALUE OF SALE DEED AS ON THE DATE OF SALE W HICH ACCORDING TO THE AO IS ABSOLUTELY A WRONG METHOD. THER EFORE, HE HELD THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED AS ON 01-04- 1981 WAS UNREASONABLE AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTABLE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE VALUATION REPORT SHOWING SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION WITH FAIR MARK ET VALUE AND THE VALUE ADOPTED IS ON WRONG METHOD, THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER OF THE INCOME-TA X DEPARTMENT NAGPUR U/S.55A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE DVO AFT ER INSPECTION OF THE LAND IN THE PRESENCE OF AR OF THE ASSESS EE GATHERED RELEVANT INFORMATION AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE OB JECTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A VALUATION REPORT TO THE AO A CCORDING TO WHICH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 WAS AT RS.2,21,040/-. THE AO CONFRONTED THE SAME TO THE ASSESS EE FOR HIS COMMENTS. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER VALUATION REP ORT FROM ANOTHER GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER SHRI K.C. CHHABD A RESTRICTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01-04-1981 BY D IFFERENT METHODS AT RS.32,34,000/- IN WHICH ASSESSEE SHARE FOR 12,3 00 SQ.MTRS WORKED OUT AT RS.9,84,000/- WHICH WAS ALREADY EST IMATED BY THE EARLIER GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER SHRI C.V. CHAN DEKAR WITH SOME VARIATION. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIV EN BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OVERS TATED THE VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSET AS ON 01-04-1981 BY SHOWING SUBST ANTIAL 4 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.12,76,576/- AS AGAINST RS.2,21,400/- DETERMINED BY THE DVO. THEREFORE, THE AO ADOPTED THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.2,21,400/-. AFTER DEDUCTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.13,99,248/ - FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION OF RS.88,65,000/- THE AO DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.74,65,752/-. 4. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE AO IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY U/S .55A OF THE I.T. ACT. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DE CISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE PUJA PRINTS VIDE I TA NO.248/2012 ORDER DATED 15-01-2014 IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT AMEN DMENT TO SECTION 55A(A) BY SUBSTITUTING THE WORDS IS AT VARIANC E WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE WORDS IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARK ET VALUE IS APPLICABLE FROM 01-07-2012 AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CLARIFICATORY HAVING RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. 5. SO FAR AS MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE VALUATION OF LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 ADOPTED BY THE A SSESSEE IS CORRECT AND THE VALUE OF THE LAND ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO IS INCORRECT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE COMPARABLE SALE INST ANCE GIVEN BY THE DVO, I.E. PROPERTY LOCATED AT SURVEY NO.501 AND SU RVEY NO.10 AS GIVEN IN THE VALUATION REPORT ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT TH E READY RECKONER RATES WERE DECLARED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAH ARASHTRA IN 1989 AND THE READY RECKONER RATE FOR THE PROPERTY SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS.200/- PER SQ.MTR IN THE YEAR 1989 WHEREA S THE DVO HAS CONSIDERED READY RECKONER RATE AT RS.125/- PER SQ .MTR. IT WAS 5 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 SUBMITTED THAT RATE AS ON 01-04-1981 IS 40% OF READY R ECKONER RATE OF 1989. HOWEVER, THE DVO IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT A MINIMUM VALUE BY ADOPTING VARIOUS SLAB RATE S, I.E., FOR FIRST 4,000 SQ.MTRS AT RS.1,00,000, NEXT 3000 SQ.MTRS AT RS.1,20,000/- AND FOR THE REMAINING PORTION AT RS.1,66,000/-. THE ACTION OF THE DVO TO VALUE A SINGLE PROPERTY IN 3 DIFFERENT SLABS IS UNJUST AND SHOULD BE DISCARDED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE IS USUALLY LOWER THAN THE MARKET VALUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE V ALUATION AS ON 01-04-1981 ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT GIVE N BY THE 2 DIFFERENT REGISTERED VALUERS. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ON MERIT ALSO THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01-04-1981. 6. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE T HE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSID ERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT HAS BEEN NO TICED THAT IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE APPEAL, FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES AR E REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED- ( 1 ) W HETHER THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO. FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER U/S 55A OF THE ACT I S W ITHOUT JURISDICTION AND LEGALLY UNTENABLE. (2) W HETHER THE VALUATION OF THE LAND - AS ON 01/04/1981 CLAIMED BY THE A PPELLANT OR ARRIVED AT BY THE D.V.O. IS TO BE ADOPT ED FOR ARRIVING AT CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF IMPUGNED AGRICU LTURAL LAND. 8. 1 THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER - THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO . FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DEPARTMENTAL V ALUATION OFFICER U/S 55A OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND LEGALLY UNTENABLE. ON P ERUSAL OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT, IT HAS BEEN N OTICED THAT THE SAID SECTION CONFERS JURISDICTION FOR REFERENCE TO THE DVO ONLY W HEN THE AD. IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED AS SET CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL, THE A . O. IS OF THE OPINION THAT VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED ASSET AS ON 01/04/1981 CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS MORE THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE ABOVE PROPOSITION O F LAW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS 6 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 (1) CIT-13, MUMBAI VS. M/S. PUJA PRINTS DATED 15/01/201 4 IN ITA NO.248 OF 2012 (BOM.) IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LAND AND BUILDI NG FOR RS.2 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE VALUE OF TH E SAID PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.35.99 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT. THE A.O. HAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.1 . 45 LAKHS ONLY PRIOR TO 15 MONTHS OF 01/04/1981 . THE A . O. HAS REFERRED THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FOR VALUATION AS ON 01/04/1981 TO THE DVO WHO HAS VALUE D THE SAME AT RS.6.68 LAKHS. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT HAS HELD THAT AS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE, REFERENCE TO DVO U/S 55A IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THA T THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 55A(A) BY SUBSTITUTING THE WOR DS 'IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE' FOR THE WORDS 'IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE IS APPLICABLE FROM 01/07/2012 AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CLARIFICATORY, HAVING RETROSPECTIVE A PPLICATION. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ALSO REJECTED THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVENUE ON CBDT CIRCULAR NO.96 DATED 25/11/1972. THE HON'BL E COURT HAS ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT TH E A . O. HAS POWER FOR CALL FOR THE REPORT FROM THE DVO TO DETER MINE FAIR MARKET VALUE U/S 131, 133(6) AND 142(2) OF THE ACT . (2) SMT . KRUSHNABAI TINGRE VS. ITO (2006) 101 ITD 317 (PUNE) IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT REFERENCE TO DV O CAN ONLY BE MADE IN CASES WHERE THE VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSET S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE; VALUE OF LAND AS ON IST APRIL, 1981, SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF APPROVED VALUER'S REPORT BEING MORE THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VAL UE, REFERENCE U/S 55A WAS NOT VALID . (3) SMT . SARALA N. SAKRANEY VS. ITO [2011]130 ITD 167 (MUM) IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE PROPERTY AS ON IST APRIL, 1981, DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE AS PER GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT BEING MORE TH AN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ESTIMATED BY THE DVO ON REFERENCE B Y AO., SAID REFERENCE IS NOT VALID, ESTIMATION OF FAIR MARKET VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ACCEPTED. (4) DAULATLAL MOHTA (HUF) (HUF) IT APPEAL NO.1031 OF 2008 DECIDED ON 22/09/2008 (BOMBAY HC). THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE MUMBAI I TAT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF SMT.SARALA N. SAKRANEY VS. ITO A.Y.2006-07 (2011) 140 TTJ 411 (MUM) REFERRED TO ABO VE. (5) HIRABEN IAYANTILAL SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [2009] 310 ITR 31 (GUJ) 7 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REFERENCE MA DE BY AO U/S 55A TO DVO ON 26 TH APRIL, 1996, FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 AND ON THE DATE OF SALE WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION FOR THE REASONS THAT RETURN WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE ONLY ON 27 TH AUGUST, 1996, VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 , AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY ESTIMATE OF REGIS TERED VALUER WAS HIGHER THAN ESTIMATED BY DVO AND NO OPINION WAS FORMED BY AO THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISTURBED BECAUSE PRESCRIBED PARAMET ERS WERE FULFILLED. (6) PRATAP M. INDULKAR, MUMBAI VS. DEPARTMENT OF INCO ME TAX, ITA NO.1142/MUM/2010 AY.2006-07 (7) RUBAB M. KAZERANI VS. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (TM ) (MUM) (8) BONY ELIES DEMELLO VS. ACIT, ITA NO.7870/MUM/2010 DATED 05/04/2013, 2013-TIOL-297 ITAT-MUM. 8 . 2 THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO FORTIFIED I N VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 55A W.E . F. 01/07/2012. IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE , , ABOVE HURDLE FOR REFERRING THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION, WHERE AS PER T HE AO. THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE VALUE A DOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEGISLATURE HAS REPLACED THE WORDS 'IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE', BY THE WORDS 'IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE' BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01/07/2012 . IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT THE AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION AND AMEND MENT TO SECTION 55A AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE INCLUDING THE DE CISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, PUNE AND HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, I HOLD THAT THE A . O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.66,68,712/- BY REFERRING THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION BY DVO U/S.55 A OF THE ACT AND FOLLOWING THE SAID VALUATION REPOR T OF THE DVO. THE ADDITION OF RS.66,68,712/- IS, THEREFORE, D ELETED. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 9 . THE SECOND ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE VALUATION OF THE LAND AS ON 01/04/1981 CLAIMED BY T HE APPELLANT OR ARRIVED AT BY THE D.V.O. IS TO BE ADOPTE D FOR ARRIVING AT CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF IMPUGNED AGRICU LTURAL LAND. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT WHILE DECIDIN G THE FIRST ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REFERENCE MADE BY T HE A . O. U/S 55A OF THE ACT FOR VALUING THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS BAD-IN-LAW AND HENCE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ' CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF REGISTERED VALUER'S REPORT IS REQUI RED TO BE ACCEPTED. IN THIS REGARD, IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED TH AT THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER IS BASED ON VALUATION GIVE N BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED THA T THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C . 56(2) AND SECTION 43CA ALSO LAY DOWN THAT WHILE ASSESSING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES T HE SALE CONSIDERATION IS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSI DERED LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FOR ST AMP DUTY 8 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 PURPOSE. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE AP PELLANT ON THIS ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE VALUE OF TH E IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT IS REASONABLE AND THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS A LSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY HIM IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, FOR ARRIVING AT THE CAPI TAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF SALE OF IMPUGNED LAND, THE VALUE OF THE P ROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 IS TO BE ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF VALU ATION MADE BY GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER RELIED ON BY THE APPE LLANT. THE SECOND ISSUE UNDER APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, STANDS DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION OF RS.66,68,712/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS, T HEREFORE, DELETED. GROUNDS NOS. 1 TO 7 ARE ALLOWED. 7. SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED HE ALSO D ECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, HE OBS ERVED THAT THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER IS BASED ON V ALUATION GIVEN BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 50C, 56(2) AND 43 CA ALSO LAY DOWN THAT WHILE ADDING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT( A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS. 66,68,712/- ON ACC OUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT,1961 BY WAY OF REFERENCE TO A DVO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OPERATIVE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.2012 AND IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION EXECUTED AFTER THIS DATE. IN THIS REGARD A TTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE MEMORANDUM TO FINANCE BILL, 2012 EXPLAINING THE SCOPE AND INTENT OF INTRODUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE VI EW UPHOLDING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEMORANDUM TO FINANCE BILL, 2012 EXPLAINING THE SCOP E AND INTENT OF 9 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AS IT WAS VERY CLEARLY STATED IN SECTION 55A THAT, IN A CASE WHERE CAPITAL ASSE T BECOME PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 1.4.1981 AND ASSESSEE HAS OP TION OF SUBSTITUTING FAIR MARKET VALUE AS THE COST OF ASSET IN SUC H CASES ADOPTION OF HIGHER VALUE AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS RAMPANT AND LEADING TO LOWER AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN BEING OFFERED TO TAX. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSIO N THAT, THIS AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVE FROM 1.7.2012 IN RESPECT OF TR ANSACTION EXECUTED AFTER THE SAID DATE WHEN IN FACT THE SECTION INTENDS TO PROVED THE POWERS TO THE AO FOR REFERENCE TO VALUATI ON IN CASES OF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE VARIANCES. 5. IT IS INCONVINCIBLE TO THINK THAT, THE PROVISIONS W OULD APPLY TO INSTANCES AFTER 1.7.2012 WHEN SECTION BY ITSELF SPEAKS OF VALUATION AS ON 1.4.1981. IT IS CLEAR THAT, POWERS ARE INTENDED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AO FOR REFERENCE TO VALUATION SUBSTANTIALLY VARIANCE IN RESPECT OF VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981. 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE VA RIANCE IN THE VALUE ADOPTED AS ON 01-04-1981 BEING SUBSTANTIAL, THE REFERENCE MADE BY TO THE DVO WAS CORRECT. THIS CAN ALSO BE BORN E OUT FROM THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO ARRIVING AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04- 1981 AT RS.2,21,400/- AS AGAINST APPROVED VALUERS AT R S.32,24,000/-. 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATION STRONGLY CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) ARE NOT APPLICABLE T O THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 55A ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING CASES. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS A.Y. 2010- 11 AND THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT INTO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A ARE W.E.F. 01-07-2012 AND THEREFORE APPLICABLE TO A.Y. 2013-14 A ND ONWARDS. SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA ), THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAVE TO BE DISMISSED. 10 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE I N THE INSTANT CASE HAS SOLD A PIECE OF LAND ON 25-02-2010 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.88,65,000/- TO M/S. OM SAI RAM STEEL AN D ALLOYS PVT. LTD. WE FIND FOR COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF TH E LAND AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.12,76,576/-. AFTER REDUCING THE INDEXE D COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.80,67,960 FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.80,65,000/- THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,97,040/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDING TO THE A O THE COST OF ACQUISITION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01-04 -1981 AT RS.12,76,576/- APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE FOR WHICH HE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO U/S.55A OF THE I.T. ACT FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981. THE DVO ARRIVED AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 AT RS.2,21,040/-. THUS, AFTER DEDUCTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.13,99,248/- ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.88,65,000/- THE AO DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.74,65,752/-. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) AND VARIOUS OTHER DEC ISIONS AS PER PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUST IFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.66,68,712/- BY REFERRING THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO THE DVO U/S.55A OF THE I.T. ACT. 12. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE FIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A READS AS UNDER : 11 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 55A REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICE WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER MA Y REFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSET TO THE VALUATION OFFICER (A) IN A CASE WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE MADE BY A REG ISTERED VALUER, IF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT T HE VALUE SO CLAIMED [IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE]; (B) . . . . . . . . 13. WE FIND THE WORDS IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE WERE SUBSTITUTED FOR IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE B Y THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01-07-2012. THEREFORE, THE QUESTIO N THAT ARISES IS AS TO WHETHER PRIOR TO INSERTION OF THE WORDS IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE THE AO HAS THE POWE R TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO WHERE THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS REPORTED IN 360 ITR 697. WE FIND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. DAULAL MOHTA (H UF) REPORTED IN 360 ITR 680 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : REGARDING QUESTIONS (A) AND (B): WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT T HE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18 FEBRUARY, 2011 ALLOWING THE RESPONDEN T ASSESSEE'S APPEAL HOLDING THAT NO REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTA L VALUATION OFFICER CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 55A OF THE ACT, O NLY FOLLOWS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE MATTER OF DAULAL MOHTA HUF (SUPRA). THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT HOW THE AFORE SAID DECISION IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS NOR HAS THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE DECISION IN DAULAL MOHTA HUF (SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. ON THE AFORESAID GROUND ALONE, THIS APPE AL NEED NOT BE ENTERTAINED. HOWEVER, AS SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON MERITS, WE HAVE INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINED THE SAME. 7. WE FIND THAT SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT VERY CLEA RLY AT THE RELEVANT TIME PROVIDED THAT A REFERENCE COULD BE MA DE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ONLY WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE PRES ENT CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.35.99 LAKHS WAS MUCH MORE T HAN THE 12 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.6.68 LAKHS EVEN AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ONLY BECAUSE IN HIS VIEW THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS O N 1981 AS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE FAIR MARKE T VALUE. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 55A A) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF TH E AMENDMENT TO SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT IN 2012 BY WHICH THE W ORDS 'IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE' IS SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORDS ' 'I S AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE' IS CLARIFACTORY AND SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THIS SUBMISSION IS IN FACE OF THE F ACT THAT THE 2012 AMENDMENT WAS MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM 1 JULY 2012. THE PARLIAMENT HAS NOT GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO THE AMENDMENT. THEREFORE, THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT AS EXISTING DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607. AT THE RELEVANT TIME, VERY CLEARLY REF ERENCE COULD BE MADE TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ONLY IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE OPINION OF ASSESSING OFFICER LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. 9. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF SECTION 55A(A) (II) OF THE ACT IS NOT ACC EPTABLE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT SECTION 55A(B)OF THE ACT VERY CLEARL Y STATES THAT IT WOULD APPLY IN ANY OTHER CASE, I.E. A CASE NOT COVERE D BY SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTABLE POSITION THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, RESORT CANNOT BE HAD TO THE RESIDUARY CLAUSE PROVIDED IN SECTION 55 A(B)(II) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 25 NOVEMBER 1972 CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE FACE OF THE CLEAR PO SITION IN LAW. THIS IS SO AS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS BY TH E REVENUE AS FOUND IN CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS NOT BINDING UP ON THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO CONTEND TO THE CONTRARY . 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS ENTITLED TO REFER THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF THE PROPE RTY TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IN EXERCISE OF ITS POW ER UNDER SECTIONS 131, 133(6) AND 142(2) OF THE ACT IS ENTIREL Y BASED UPON THE DECISION OF THE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN SMT. AMIYA BA LA PAUL (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE APEX COURT IN SMT. AMIYA BALA PAUL (SUP RA) HAS REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT AND HELD THAT IF THE POWER TO REFER ANY DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE VALUAT ION OF THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE UNDER SECTIONS 131 (1) , 136(6) AND 142(2) OF THE ACT, THERE WAS NO NEED TO SPECIFICALLY EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO SO IN CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED UNDE R SECTION 55A OF THE ACT. IT FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN A SPECIFIC PROVISION UNDER WHICH THE REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IS AVAILABLE, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO INVOKE THE GENERAL POWERS OF ENQUIRY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF CL EAR PROVISIONS OF LAW AS EXISTING DURING THE PERIOD RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT QUESTIO NS (A) AND (B) DO NOT RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 13 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 REGARDING QUESTION (C): 11. THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS MERELY REM ANDED THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE DATE ON W HICH THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE COST OF ACQUISITION. NO SPECIFIC SUBMISSI ONS IN REGARD TO THIS ISSUE WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE DURING THE ORAL SU BMISSIONS. IN ANY EVENT, AN ORDER OF REMAND IN THESE FACTS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 12. ACCORDINGLY, WE SEE NO REASON TO ENTERTAIN QUESTIO NS (A), (B) AND (C) AS FORMULATED BY THE REVENUE AS THEY DO NOT R AISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL IS DI SMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 14. SINCE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY TAKEN A V IEW THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 0 1-07- 2012 IS NOT CLARIFICATORY AND RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, THER EFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AGAINST THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CIT(A) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO U/S.55A OF THE ACT ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VALUE OF THE CAPITA L ASSET DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE AO. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE THAT THE AO HAS POWER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO U/S.55A OF THE ACT PRIOR TO 01-07- 2012. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS A.Y. 2010-11 AND SINCE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESS EE AS ON 01-04-1981 IS MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, THEREFORE, THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO U/S.55A OF TH E I.T. ACT. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THA T THE AMENDMENT WILL APPLY TO PENDING CASES IN OUR OPINION IS ALSO NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T CITED (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 14 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 ITA NO.674/PN/2014 (SHRI SURENDRA SHRIRANGPRASAD MEH RA) : 15. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT( A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS. 99,18,640/- ON ACC OUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT,1961 BY WAY OF REFERENCE TO A DVO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OPERATIVE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.2012 AND IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION EXECUTED AFTER THIS DATE. IN THIS REGARD A TTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE MEMORANDUM TO FINANCE BILL, 2012 EXPLAINING THE SCOPE AND INTENT OF INTRODUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE VI EW UPHOLDING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEMORANDUM TO FINANCE BILL, 2012 EXPLAINING THE SCOP E AND INTENT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AS IT WAS VERY CLEARLY STATED IN SECTION 55A THAT, IN A CASE WHERE CAPITAL ASSE T BECOME PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 1.4.1981 AND ASSESSEE HAS OP TION OF SUBSTITUTING FAIR MARKET VALUE AS THE COST OF ASSET IN SUC H CASES ADOPTION OF HIGHER VALUE AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS RAMPANT AND LEADING TO LOWER AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN BEING OFFERED TO TAX. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSIO N THAT, THIS AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVE FROM 1.7.2012 IN RESPECT OF TR ANSACTION EXECUTED AFTER THE SAID DATE WHEN IN FACT THE SECTION INTENDS TO PROVED THE POWERS TO THE AO FOR REFERENCE TO VALUATI ON IN CASES OF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE VARIANCES. 5. IT IS INCONVINCIBLE TO THINK THAT, THE PROVISIONS W OULD APPLY TO INSTANCES AFTER 1.7.2012 WHEN SECTION BY ITSELF SPEAKS OF VALUATION AS ON 1.4.1981. IT IS CLEAR THAT, POWERS ARE INTENDED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AO FOR REFERENCE TO VALUATION SUBSTANTIALLY VARIANCE IN RESPECT OF VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981. 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE VA RIANCE IN THE VALUE ADOPTED AS ON 01-04-1981 BEING SUBSTANTIAL, THE REFERENCE MADE BY TO THE DVO WAS CORRECT. THIS CAN ALSO BE BORN E OUT FROM THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO ARRIVING AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04- 1981 AT RS.4,48,000/- AS AGAINST APPROVED VALUERS AT R S.18,36,024/-. 16. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.672/PN/2014. WE HAVE ALREADY D ECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN 15 ITA NO.672 AND 674/PN/2014 DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-04-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 15 TH APRIL 2016 ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. % ( ) , / THE CIT(A),AURANGABAD 4. % / THE CIT, AURANGABAD 5 . 6. ( ++,, ,, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; 1 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ( + //TRUE COPY // ( + //TRUE COPY// 34 + , / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ,, / ITAT, PUNE