M/s NHAI, Siliguri V. A.C.I.T (TDS),Siliguri, Sikkim

ITA 926/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1685 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M SURANA SAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T VARKEY JUDIC IA L M EMBER
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI ABY.T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 925 / KOL / 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 SRI NIKHILESH SADHUKHAN 3, RAJ KUMAR CHATTERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700037 [ PAN NO.AQLPS 4146-G ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-40(2), 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-03-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-06-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIV, KOLKATA DATED 13.03.2013. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-40(2), KOLKATA U/ S 143(3)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10.12.2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SHRI S,.M. SURANA, LD. ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI SALLONG YADEN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPR ESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. IN THIS APPEAL VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED OUT OF WHICH GROUNDS NO.1, 5 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIR E SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.925/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. N. SADHUKHAN VS. ITO WD-40(2) KOL. PAGE 2 3. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IN GROUND NO. 2 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE VALUE DECLARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE CALCULATION OF CAPIT AL GAIN U/S 50C OF THE ACT. 4. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT LD. AR HAS N OT ADVANCED ANY ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL. THUS IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS. 5. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IN GROUND NO. 3 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ACTUAL CONSIDERAT ION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPER TY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS INTER-ALIA DERIVED HIS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER THE HEAD CA PITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE INVESTMENT FOR 18 LAKH IN THE ASSET AS SPECIFIED U/S 54EC OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION FROM THE CAPIT AL GAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS INVOKED THE PRO VISION OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT FOR THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE SAL E CONSIDERATION AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, TH E AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THE CAPITAL GAIN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE AO FURTHER WHILE DETERMINING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATIO N AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATION REC EIVED BY HIM FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF CONSIDERATION DECLARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP VALUATION. 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION FOR ALL THE PROPERTIES ARE ARISING OUT FOR 18,99,500/- AND OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF 18 LAKH WAS INVESTED IN SECURITY AS SPECIFIED U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO.925/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. N. SADHUKHAN VS. ITO WD-40(2) KOL. PAGE 3 EXEMPTION. ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR MAKI NG FURTHER INVESTMENT OF THE DEEMED CONSIDERATION FOR CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 54EC OF THE ACT THE ASSES SEE REQUIRES TO MAKE INVESTMENT OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE SPECIFIED LONG TERM ASSET. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR MAKING THE INVESTM ENT OF THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION AS SPECIFIED U/S. 50C OF THE ACT. THE AO IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM RELIED ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITA T MUMBAI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF NILA V.SHAH VS. CIT(A) IN ITA NO.3745/MUM/2008. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION HAS GIVEN R ELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN PART BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A/ R AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. VIDE HIS LETTER NO. C IT(A)-XII/REMAND REPORT/2011-12/KOL/155 DATED 07.07.2011 THE LD. A/R HAD REQUESTED TO THE CIT(A)-XII, KOLKATA TO REFER THE CASE TO THE DV O FOR VALUATION IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OFF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPE AL FILED BY THE APPELLANT. VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 07.03.2013, THE LD . A/R HAS INFORMED THAT THE VALUATION CELL OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMEN T HAS MARGINALLY REDUCED THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATIO N AUTHORITY. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF VALUATION REPOR TS DATED 01.10.2012 OF THE VALUATION CELL OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLKATA. THE DETAILS OF THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION CELL IS GIVE N AS UNDER:- SL.NO. DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY FAIR MARKET VALUE 1. THE SHOP/GODOWN CONTAINING AN AREA 520.78 SQ.FT. AT HABRA BAZAR, THIRD LANE, WARD NO.20, DIST.24- PGS. NORTH, P.S. HABRA RS.10,62,390/- 2 THE SHOP CONTAINING AN AREA 146.50 SQ.FT. AT HABR A BAZR, THIRD LANE, WARD NO.20. DIST. 24-PGS. NORTH, P.S. HABRA RS.2,98,860/- 3 THE SHOP/GODOWN CONTAINING AN AREA 269.75 SQ.FT. AT HABRA BAZAR, THIRD LANE, WARD NO.20. DIST. 24- GS. NORTH, P.S. HABRA RS.5,50,290/- 4 THE SHOP/GODOWN CONTAINING AN AREA 816.00 SQ.FT AT HABRA BAZAR, THIRD LANE, WARD NO.20, DIST. 24- PGS., NORTH, P.S. HABRA RS.16,64,640/- RS.35,76,180/- THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF MRS. NILA SHAH VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD THAT FOR WORKING OF THEE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THE SALE CONSIDERATION WOULD BE AS PER THE VAL UE DETERMINED U/S. 50C. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CO MPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S. 50C AFTER ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKE T VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICE OF THE INCOME-TA X DEPARTMENT AND ITA NO.925/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. N. SADHUKHAN VS. ITO WD-40(2) KOL. PAGE 4 ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC ON ACTUAL, S ALE VALUE. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSE E CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 3. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO BE ADOPTED ON THE BASI S OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 8. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE VE HEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. T HE FACTS WHICH ARE BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD FOUR PROPERTIES WORTH OF 18.99 LACS WHICH WERE VALUED U/S 50C OF THE ACT FOR 35,76,180/- BY THE DEPARTMENT VALUATION OFFICER. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED SECURITIES FOR 18 LACS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. THE AO ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS TREATING THE VALUE DECLARED FOR THE PURPOSE O F STAMP VALUATION AS SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54EC ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FO R EXEMPTION FROM THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE CAPITAL GAINS AROSE FROM THE TRANSFER OF LONG TERM GAIN ASSET AND THE WHOLE OR A NY PART OF THE SAID CAPITAL GAINS IS INVESTED IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED SECURITIES W ITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE PROVISIONS FOR SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT REQUIRE TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN THE SPECIFIED SECURITIES ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL SALE CO NSIDERATION AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF DEEMING AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AS ENVISAG ED IN SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. WHEREAS THE PROVISION OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT P ROVIDES FOR DEEMED VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ADOPTED AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE IMPUGNED P ROPERTY WAS SOLD AT A VALUE ITA NO.925/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. N. SADHUKHAN VS. ITO WD-40(2) KOL. PAGE 5 LESSER THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ST AMP DUTY. THEREFORE THE VALUATION DETERMINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP VALUA TION IS TAKEN AS SALE CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, SUCH DEEMING PROVISION CANN OT BE APPLIED TO THE PROVISION OF LAW AS SPECIFIED SECTION 54EC OF THE A CT. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE S HALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF 18 LAKH I.E. ACTUAL INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, FOR THE CO MPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN THE PROVISION OF DEEMING SALE CONSIDER ATION SHALL BE APPLIED AS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT I.E. 35,76,180/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS AFT ER TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 35,76,180.00 AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC, TH E SALE VALUE WOULD BE TAKEN AT 18.99 LACS WHICH IS THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAS ALS O RELIED ON THE ORDER OF NILA V SHAH (SUPRA) AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ADOPTED THE BASIS FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.4 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT 20,000/- 11. THE ASSESSEE WHILE WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN S ON THE TRANSFER OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPER TY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT 1,02,302/- AND SAME COST OF THE PROPERTY WAS INDEXE D ON THE BASIS OF GOLD RATES OF 24 CARAT GOLD WHICH WAS WORKED OUT AT 4,91,050/-. THUS, ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY TRANSFERED AT 4,91,050/-. HOWEVER, THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS PARTITIONED DATED 15.07.1985 AND THUS HE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY O N THAT DATE. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER PARTITION DEED AT 20,000/- IN RESPECT OF FOUR IMPUGNED PROPERTIES AS ITA NO.925/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. N. SADHUKHAN VS. ITO WD-40(2) KOL. PAGE 6 DISCUSSED ABOVE. FIRSTLY, THE AO DISREGARDED THE BA SIS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION OF THE COST OF THE PROPERTY SOLD IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SECONDLY, THE VALUATION D ECLARED ON THE PARTITION DATE OF ALL THE FOUR PROPERTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WAS AT RS.20,000/- ONLY. OUT OF WHICH ONE PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN THE IMMEDIATE PRE CEDING YEAR AND REMAINING THREE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. THUS, AO HAS TAKEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THREE PROPE RTIES ON PROPORTIONED BASIS I.E. 15,000/- ONLY AND ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT INDEXED CO ST AS UNDER:- 15 X 480 133 = 54,135/- ACCORDINGLY, AO WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS AT 39,29,490/- WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 12. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUG NED PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY HIS FATHER IN THE YEAR 1959 FOR A SUM O F 14,000/- AND COST OF STAMP WAS INCURRED AT 500/-. THUS, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF 20,000/- TAKEN BY THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS IS NOT A T ALL LOGICAL. IN-FACT THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY HAS GONE MANIFOLDS HIGH. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR PART OF THE PROPERTY HAVING 640 SQ. FT. AREA WAS SOLD AND ITS COST OF ACQUISITION W AS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION MADE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 FO R A SUM OF 1,13,300/- WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. THUS, ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO TAKE THE RATE PER SQ. F T AT 2030/- ONLY (130300 640) AS ON 01.04.1981. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DISREGAR DED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT TAKEN FROM T HE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSE E CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 4. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED TH E COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.81 AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.925/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. N. SADHUKHAN VS. ITO WD-40(2) KOL. PAGE 7 13. LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIO NS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BESIDES THE ABOVE THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY BY THE REGISTERED VALUER WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT NONE OF THEM HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME WHILE DECIDING THE INSTANT ISSUE. ON THE OTHER HAND , LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDER OF A UTHORITIES BELOW. THE LIMITED ISSUE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS CONFINED TO THE F OLLOWING POINTS:- I) WHETHER COST OF ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF THE IM PUGNED PROPERTY SOLD SHOULD BE TAKEN AT 20,000/- ONLY AS RECORDED IN THE PARTITION DEED. OR (II) WHETHER THE COST OF ACQUISITION WILL BE TAKEN AS THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AS ON 01.04.1981 IN RESPEC T OF THE PROPERTY SOLD IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. OR II) WHETHER THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF 2030/- ONLY PER SQ. FT. SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIA TE PRECEDING YEAR WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS CONNECTION, WE FIND THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE REGISTERED VALUER THO UGH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TO HAVE FILED THE SAME BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. S IMILARLY, WE ALSO FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE VALUATION OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY @ 2030.00 PER SQ. FT. IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR AS EVID ENT FROM THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. BUT ON PERUSA L OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED ON THE BASIS OF MERIT. WE ALSO FIND THA T THE VALUATION REPORT SHOWING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR WAS NEVER VERIFIED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE AR E NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT ITA NO.925/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 SH. N. SADHUKHAN VS. ITO WD-40(2) KOL. PAGE 8 THE SAME VIEW TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION A S ON 01.04.1981 NEEDS TO BE RE-VERIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES. THEREFORE WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO R E-VERIFY THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 AND AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPE AL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED PAR TLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 07/ 05/2017 SD/- SD/- (ABY. T. VARKEY) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP !- 07 / 06 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SRI NIKHILESH SADHUKHAN,3 RAJ KR. CHATTE RJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-37 2. /RESPONDENT-INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-40(2), 18 RABI NDRA SARANI, KOLATA-01 3. ) *+ , , - / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. , , -- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 012 33*+, , *+ , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 267 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO , *+ ,