RAMCHAND H.VALECHA, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 41, MUMBAI

ITA 6964/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5438 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAY KUMAR LD DR
• Assessee Lawyers: A K GHOSH LD
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 153A; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6964/MUM/2016 RAMCHAND H. VALECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM I.T.A. NO.6964/MUM/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) RAMCHAND H. VALECHA PLOT NO.10, ASHIANA, 10 TH N.S.ROAD, JVPD SCHEME MUMBAI-400 049 VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2) AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ! ' PAN/GIR NO. AABPV-7054-Q ( !# APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : A.K.GHOSH, LD.AR RE VENUE BY : JAY KUMAR, LD. DR & DATE OF HEARING : 19/07/2018 '() / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/07/2018 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2011-12 CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS)-49 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-49/IT-112/2014-15 DATED 16/09/2016. GROUND NO. 1 HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BEFOR E US WHEREAS ITA NO.6964/MUM/2016 RAMCHAND H. VALECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 2 GROUND NO. 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. THE EFFECTIVE GR OUNDS ARE GROUND NOS. 2 & 3, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.10,69,065/- AS ON 01.04.1981. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED TO HOLD THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF TH E PROPERTY AT RS. NIL, WHICH WAS INADVERTENTLY SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CONSEQUENTLY, ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE INDEXATION BENEFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-41, MUMB AI [AO] U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 13/03/2014 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSE D AT RS.71.81 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RETURNED IN COME OF RS.29.03 LACS OFFERED IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 20/12/2012 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A. THE ASSESSEE, BEING PART OF VALECHA ENGINEERING LIMITED, WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH OPERATIONS U/S 132 ON 26/07/201 1 AND CONSEQUENTLY A NOTICE U/S 153A DATED 16/10/2012 WAS ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 14 2(1). 2. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN [LTCG] FROM SALE OF A FLAT SITUATED AT PATHARDI, NASHIK WHICH WAS STATED TO BE PURCHASED ON 06/01/1981. TH E FLAT WAS SOLD VIDE SALE DEED DATED 01/02/2011 FOR R S.350 LACS AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE THEREIN @ 17.14% AMOUNTED TO RS.60 LACS. AGAINST THE SAME, A DEDUCTION OF RS.50 LAC WAS CLAIMED U/S 54EC AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10 LACS WAS OFFERED TO TAX AS LTCG . HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUE [SDV] OF THE PROPERTY WAS ITA NO.6964/MUM/2016 RAMCHAND H. VALECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 3 RS.599.50 LACS AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 50C WERE APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE AFORESAID VALUATION, HOWEVER, THE SAME COULD NOT FIND FAVOR WITH LD. AO. RESULTAN TLY, ADOPTING THE SDV AS THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION U/S 50C, THE RESUL TANT LTCG WAS RE- COMPUTED AS RS.52.75 LACS AND THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOU NT OF RS.42.75 LACS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTE D THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY WAS NEITHER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ALLOWED BY LD. AO WHILE COMPUTING THE AFORESAID GAI NS. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHO UT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/09/2 016 WHEREIN A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED AGAINST THE SAME AND THE MATTER O F VALUATION WAS REFERRED TO DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER [DVO] IN TERMS OF ASSESSEES OBJECTION. THE LD. DVO VALUED THE PROPERTY IN THE F OLLOWING MANNER:- NO. VALUATION DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 1. AS ON 01/04/1981 RS.6,27,000/- 2. AS ON 01/02/2011 RS.4,15,38,750/- THE ASSESSEE WHILE ACCEPTING THE VALUATION AS ON TH E DATE OF SALE, PLEADED FOR ALLOWANCE OF COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE COMPUTATIONS. THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY LD.DVO AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS AL SO CONTESTED. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THE MA TTER IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- DECISION 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O IN ME ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS AND THE RE MAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE A.O. 6.1 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PLOT AT PATHARDI, NASHIK BY CONSIDERING THE PURCHASE VALUE WITH INDEXATION AS PER ASSESSEE AT RS. NIL AND THE SALE VALUE AT RS.1,02,75,430/- @ ITA NO.6964/MUM/2016 RAMCHAND H. VALECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 4 17.14% OF THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AT RS.5,99,50,000/-, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT . THE A.O. HAS FURTHER ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.54EC OF RS.50,00,000/- 6.1.1 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT'S SHARE IN THE PROPERTY WAS AT 17.14% FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I)NOWHERE IN THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED 09.01.19 81, THE SHARES OF THE CO- OWNERS ARE SPECIFIED. FROM THE PURCHASE AGREEME NT, ONE CANNOT DETERMINE WHO HAS PAID THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION A ND WHAT IS THE CONSIDERATION CONTRIBUTED BY THE RESPECTIVE CO-OWNE R. (II)THE SALES CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY IS DETE RMINABLE FROM THE CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 01.02.2011 AND THE APPELLANT' S SHARE IN THE SALES CONSIDERATION IS AT RS.60,00,000/-, OUT OF TOTAL SA LES CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,50,00,000/-. 6.1.2 IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED, THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE V ALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE O F THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SALES CONSIDER ATION OF RS.3,50,00000/-, AS APPEARING IN THE AGREEMENT, BE CONSIDERED AS THE FA IR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. SINCE, THE APPELLAN T HAD OBJECTED TO THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY, THE A.O. WAS DUTY BOUND TO REFER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. CIT (SUPRA). 6.1.3 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PRO PERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE CO- OWNERS PRIOR TO 01.04.1981 AND THEREFORE, THE FAIR- MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN D ETERMINED BY REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE A.O. HAS NOT A LLOWED THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. 6.2 THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTING THE CAPIT AL GAINS ARE PROVIDED IN CHAPTER IV OF THE I.T. ACT. SECTION 48 PROVIDES FOR COMPUTI NG THE CAPITAL GAINS BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR AC CRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE AS SET AND THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT WHERE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISES, THE WORDS 'COST OF ACQUISITION' AND 'COST OF IMPROVEMEN T' HAVE TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORDS 'INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION' AND 'INDEXED CO ST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT. 6.2.1 SECTION 50C(1) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CONSID ERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADO PTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL, F OR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. SECTI ON 50C(2) PROVIDES THAT THE A.O, MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A V ALUATION OFFICER WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE VALUE ADOP TED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROP ERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER. 6.2.2 SECTION 55(2)(B)(I) PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PUR POSES OF SECTION 48 AND 49, COST OF ACQUISITION IN RELATION TO ANY OTHER CAPITAL ASSET, WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME A PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE 1 DAY OF APRIL, 1981, MEANS THE COST OF ITA NO.6964/MUM/2016 RAMCHAND H. VALECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 5 ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET TO THE ASSESSEE OR THE FAI R MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1981, AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.3 I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT, IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED U/S153A OF THE ACT ON 20.12.2012, HAS DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS O N THE SAID PROPERTY BY PROVIDING FOLLOWING DETAILS: DESCRIPTION QT Y SALE DATE NET SALES PURCHASE DATE PURCHASE AMOUNT INDEX INDEXED COST TAXABLE COST SHARE IN PROPERTY AT 1 01.02.20 11 60,00000 09.01.1981 0 711/100 0 6000000 0 6000000 0 0 6000000 0 6.3.1 THIS RETURN WAS FILED MUCH AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, I.E. 26.07.2011 IN WHICH THE DOCUMENT REGARDING PURCHASE AGREEMENT/SALE DEED DATED 09.01.1981 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED, SHOWING THE PURCHASE COST AT RS.3 3,000/- THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE THREE CO-OWNERS OF THE SA ID PLOT OF LAND AND THE SHARE OF RESPECTIVE CO-OWNERS WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE PURCH ASE AGREEMENT. FROM THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ONE CANNOT DETERMINE WHO HAS PA ID THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AND WHAT IS THE CONSIDERATION CONTRIB UTED BY THE RESPECTIVE CO-OWNER. FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS HIMSELF OPTE D TO DECLARE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AT RS.NIL, IN TERMS OF SECTION 55(2)(B )(I) OF THE ACT, AS PER THE DECLARATION MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIONED THE INDEX AT 711/100 AN D HAS COMPUTED THE INDEXED COST AT RS. NIL. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE A PPELLANT THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED AND S HOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE A.O., BY REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE VALUATI ON OFFICER, IS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 6.3.2. FROM THE REMAND REPORT AND THE REPORT OF THE DVO-1, MUMBAI DATED 26.01.2016, IT APPEARS THAT THE REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 ULS.55A OF THE ACT AND AS ON 01.02.2011 U/S.50C(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTED THAT AS PER THE REMAND LETTER DATED 25.08.2015, THE AO. WAS DIRECTE D TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT TO ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID ASSET. FURTHER, THE A.O. WAS REQUIRED TO ENQUIRE REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE COST OF AC QUISITION ON 09.01.1981 OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS RS.33,000/- AS PER THE SUPPORTING EVID ENCE (SEIZED DOCUMENTS) FLIED ALONG WITH THE PAPER BOOK. THERE IS NO DIRECTION IN THE REMAND REPORT TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER U/S.55A TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 01.04.1981. IT APPEARS THAT THERE HAS BEEN SO ME COMMUNICATION GAP AND REFERENCE ULS.55A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE ERRONEOU SLY. EVEN OTHERWISE, REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER U/S.55A WAS NOT REQUIRED SINCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY ESTIMATE OF SUCH FAIR MARKET VALUE BY WAY OF ANY RE PORT OF REGISTERED VALUER EITHER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS ITSELF OPTED TO DISCLOSE THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N AT RS. NIL U(S.55(2)(B)(I) OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE SUCH A REFER ENCE, WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 CAN BE REFERRED TO DVO FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CO MPUTATION OF LONG TERM GAINS U/S 55A OF THE ACT, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA , IN THE CASE OF CIT VS UMEDBHAI INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD (2011) 338 ITR 506 HAS HELD T HAT SUCH A REFERENCE COULD NOT BE MADE UNLESS THE AO FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO.6964/MUM/2016 RAMCHAND H. VALECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 6 LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. OBVIOUSLY, SUCH AN OPINION CANNOT BE FORMED WITH RESPECT TO VALUE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AT RS NIL, SINCE THAT WOULD GO AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD TH AT THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER, ESTIMATING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPER TY AS ON 01.04.1981 U/S 55A OF THE ACT, IS TO BE IGNORED FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS. THE AP PELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT TAKING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.198 1 AT RS. 33,000/- AS CONTENDED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT WAS MISCONCEIVED. I FIN D THAT OTHER THAN THE ABOVE SAID DVOS REPORT, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD ANY OTHER MATERIAL TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR A COST OF ACQUISITION OTHER THAN THE AMOU NT DECLARED IN THE RETURN AT RS. NIL. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY CON SIDERED THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS. NIL. 6.4 THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER HAS REPORTED THA T THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.02.2011 WAS RS.4,15,38,750/-, IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE A BOVE SAID VALUE AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AND RE-COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS BY C ONSIDERING THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.7 1,19,742/-, (I.E., 17.14% OF RS.4,15,38,750/-), AS ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED BY THE A PPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS A RESULT, THE ADDITION MADE ULS.50C OF THE ACT O F RS.42,75,430/- WILL GET RESTRICTED TO RS,11,19,742/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, GROUND NO.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AFTER HEARING RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES, WE FIN D THE ISSUE TO BE IN A VERY NARROW COMPASS I.E. WHETHER THE COST OF ACQU ISITION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER QUESTION WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESS EE AND IF YES, TO WHAT EXTENT, IT WAS ALLOWABLE? IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE REVENUE COULD NOT BENEFIT OUT OF ASSESSEES SHORTCOMINGS / IGNORANCE AND PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMAND THAT WHATEVER LEGITIMATE CLA IM AROSE IN ASSESSEES FAVOR, THE SAME WERE ALLOWABLE TO HIM. T HE PROPERTY UNDER QUESTION HAS BEEN SOLD AND UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSED TO REVENUE. AS A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE, THE PROPERTY MUST HAVE BEEN AC QUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SOME MODE OF ACQUISITION. THE COST OF A CQUISITION, IN TERMS OF COMPUTATIONAL PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 48, WAS CLEARLY ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT NOTW ITHSTANDING THE FACT ITA NO.6964/MUM/2016 RAMCHAND H. VALECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 7 THAT COST WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED LD. DVOS VALUATION OF THE FLAT ON THE DAT E OF SALE. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE ANY FURTHER. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO RE ASON FOR NOT ADOPTING THE VALUATION AS ON 01/04/1981. THE FLAT, PRIMA FACIE, WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 01/04/1981 AND THE LAW PROVIDES THAT IN SUCH A CASE THE COST OF ACQUISITION WOULD MEAN COST OF ACQUISITION OR FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981, AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. AR, IN SUPPORT OF COST OF ACQUISITION, H AS PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF PURCHASE DOCUMENTS WHICH APPARENTLY H AVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD. AO. HENCE, LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO APPRECIATE THE SAME AND RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF OUR DIRECTIONS BEARING IN MIND THAT THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE PR OPERTY WAS TO THE EXTENT OF 17.14%. 7. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STAND ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JULY, 2018 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *& MUMBAI; DATED : 25.07.2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH ITA NO.6964/MUM/2016 RAMCHAND H. VALECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 8 ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. + ,$ - -) *& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./0 & GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, # '$% (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) *& / ITAT, MUMBAI