DCIT, Pune v. Mr Abhijit Vijay Phulmamdikar, Pune

ITA 1131/PUN/2012 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 113124514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AECPP7565B
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1131/PUN/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Pune
Respondent Mr Abhijit Vijay Phulmamdikar, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 26-11-2013
Next Hearing Date 26-11-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 31-05-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE: SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1070/PN/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR F - 9 SWAPNASHILP 19/2 GANESH NAGAR KOTHRUD PUNE - 411038 VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AECPP7565B ITA NO . 1131 /PN/20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 09 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 PUNE VS. MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR F - 9 SWAPNASHILP 19/2 GANESH NAGAR KOTHRUD PUNE - 411038 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AECPP7565B REVENUE BY: SHRI MAZHAR AKRAM ASSESSEE BY: SHRI KISHORE PHADKE DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 - 1 1 - 2014 DAT E OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 11 - 2014 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR JM : - THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER BY THE REVENUE ARE FILED CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT(A) - II PUNE DATED 23 - 01 - 2012 FOR THE A.Y . 2008 - 09. WE FIRST TAKE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 1070/PN/2012 FOR DISPOSAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM S TANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARN E D C.I.T . (A) HAS ERRED IN DENYING DEDUCTION OF RS.16 00 000/ - PAID TO MRS. ARATI NIMGAOKAR FROM LONG TERM CAPI T AL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND BY THE APPELLANT TO M/S . SUVIDHA DEVELOPERS.. THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED TO APPELLANT. 2 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE 2. THE LEARNED C. I. T.(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY ALLOWING PART LY INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS.22 70 000/ - ( I.E. AS ON 1.4.81 OF RS.4 11 980/ - ) FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AS AGAINST INDEX COST OF A C QUISITION OF RS.63 91 600/ - (I.E . RS.11 60 000/ - AS ON 1.4.1981). THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INDEX COST OF A C QUISITIO N MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED. 3. THE LEAR N ED C.I.T . (A) HAS ERRED IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.5 50 000/ - (INDEX COST OF A C QUIS I TION OF RS.10 78 470/ - ) FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND TO M/S SUVIDHA DEVELOPERS. THE AFORESAI D DEDUCTION MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF THE DEDUCTION OF RS.16 00 000/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WAS IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE BY HIM TO HIS SISTER FOR ALLEGEDL Y SETTLING THE DISPUTE IN THE PROPERTY/LAND . THE FACTS WHICH REVEALED FROM THE RECORDS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND INTEREST AND DIVIDEND. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.82 05 590 / - ON 13 - 06 - 2008 THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE REVISED THE INCOME TO RS.1 07 09 630 / - AND FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 17 - 07 - 2009 BY WITHDRAWING EXEMPTION CLAIMED U /S. 54F. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A LAND FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.27 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE PAYMENT OF RS.16 LACS TO HIS SISTER MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR AS A DEDUCTION TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REJEC TED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.16 LACS WAS APPLICATION OF INCOME AND THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXCEPT A LEGAL NOTICE WAS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED TO BE THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF RS.16 LACS AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER OF 3 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE CAPITAL ASSET AND THE CAPITAL GAINS CLAIMED WAS ACCORDINGLY INCREASE D TO THAT EXTENT. 2.1 IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND ISSUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE VALUER HAD ARRIVED AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS 01 - 04 - 1981 OF RS.16.90 LACS WHICH INCLUDED RS. 11 60 000 / - ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF TREES STANDING ON THE SAID LAND . THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SALE VALUE OF LAND IS INCLUSIVE OF THE VALUE OF TREES STANDING THEREON. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS 'AS ON WHERE IS BASIS' I.E. THE TREES AND THE STRUCTURE ON IT WAS INCLUSIVE AND ALSO THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD OR EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE TREES ON THE LAND AS ON THE DATE OF FMV I.E. AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INFERRED THAT THE BASIS ON WHICH THE APPROVED VALUER HAD ARRIVED AT THE FMV OF RS. 11.60 LACS WAS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND IN THE SALES CONSIDERATION RECORD OF THE SALE OF LAND THERE WAS NO SEPARATE DEMARCATION OF THE VALUE OF LAND AND TREES THEREON. THUS ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REDUCED THE FMV AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11.60 LACS FOR ARRIVING OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. 2.2 IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD ISSUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.5.50 LACS AS TH E COST OF FENCING OF THE LAND AND CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ON OLD HOUSE SITUATED IN THE FARM LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AT PIRANGUT HOWEVER AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE SAID CLAIM AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOW ED THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.5 . 50 LACS CLAIMED AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS.16 00 000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS A COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT 4 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE WITHOUT SUCCESS. THE LD. CIT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOW A BILITY OF THE DEDUCTION TOWARDS RS.16 00 000/ - PAID TO MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR BY GIVING THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 3.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. SEC. 48 DEALS WITH THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND FOUR ITEMS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ARE: 1. FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. 2. EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER. 3. COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET. 4. COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSET. THUS THE AGGREGATE AMOUNTS REPRESENTING IN ITEM 2 3 4 ABOVE ARE REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM ITEM (A) IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. THUS IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 48 THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE 'WHOLLY' IN TERMS OF QUANTUM IN CONNE CTION WITH TRANSFER AND THE MOTIVE FOR SUCH EXPENDITURE SHOULD ALSO BE THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN ORDER THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE WORD 'EXCLUSIVELY'. THE ALLOWABILITY SHALL HAVE TO BE EXAMINED FROM THIS ANGLE. IN ORDER T O ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER ONE MUST LOOK TO THE DIRECT PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED AND NOT TO REMOTE OR INDIRECT RESULT WHICH MAY FLOW FROM OR MOTIVATE THE E XPENDITURE. 3.5 IN THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE APPELLANT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF PIROJA PATEL (SUPRA) THE COMPENSATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE HUTMENT DWELLERS FOR VACATING THE LAND BEFORE ITS SALE AMOUNTED TO COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND CONSID ERED AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/S 48 READ WITH SEC 55. IN THIS CAS.E THE HUTMENT DWELLERS WERE IN POSSESSION OR OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THEY HAD CLAIMED OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OVER THE LAND SECONDLY GIVING VACANT POSSESSION OF THE LAND WA S A CONDITION 5 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE PRECEDENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NEGOTIATION CUM ACQUISITION AGREEMENT AND THAT BY REMOVING THE HUTMENT DWELLERS THE PROPERTY IMPROVED IN VALUE. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER AND IS IN POSSESSION OF THE PRO PERTY THEREFORE THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT APPLICABLE AND DISTINGUISHABLE. 3.6 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SRINIVASA RAO (1987) 166 ITR 593 (AP) WHEREIN THE LAND WAS COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED AND THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS LANDLORD PAID TO THE PROTECTED TENANT AMOUNT TO GET THE LAND VACATED TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE VACANT POSSESSION TO THE ACQUIRING AUTHORITY IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE U/S 48(I). IT WAS OBSERVED THAT AMOUNT COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO P ERFECT THE TITLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NEITHER STATUTORY NOR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO HAND OVER VACANT POSSESSION TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SUCH AN EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE REGARDED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER OF LAND IN QUESTION. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS R RANGA SHETTY (1986)159 ITR 497 (KAR) AMOUNT PAID TO THE TENANT TO VACATE AND TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO HANDOVER VACANT POSSESSION OF LAND ACQUIRED COMPULSORILY BY THE CON CERNED AUTHORITY WAS NOT HELD TO BE AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER OF THE ASSET. 3.7 IN THE CASE OF B.N. PINTO VS CIT (1974) 96 ITR 306 (MYSORE) DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DETENTION OF PROPERTY WAS HELD TO BE NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CO NNECTION WITH TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 48(I). IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT WAS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE DISPUTE TO ITS OWNERSHIP HAS NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED. THE LEGAL NOTICE SENT BY THE SISTER IS BY NO M EANS A LEGAL SUIT FILED IN THE COURT OF LAW DISPUTING THE OWNERSHIP OR TITLE OF THE PROPERTY. NO SUCH SUIT DISPUTING THE TITLE OR THE WILL HAS BEEN FILED. THE APPELLANT HAS PAID THE SUM OF RS.16 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBLE LIKELY EVENTS WHICH NEVER TOOK PL ACE( THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SISTER IN INSTALMENTS HAS BEEN MADE AFTER THE SALE OF PROPERTY TO M/S SUVIDHA DEVELOPERS THEREFORE THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAME IS IN NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME IS ALSO NOT OUT OF CONTEXT. T HE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE PAYMENT TO THE SISTER WAS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO EFFECT THE TRANSFER IN OTHER 6 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE WORDS WITHOUT REMOVING ENCUMBRANCE INCLUDING THE ENCUMBRANCE OF THE TYPE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE SALE OR TRANSFER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EFFECTED INFACT THE SALE TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT TO THE SISTER MS. AARTI IN A STAGGERED MANNER ON THREE DIFFERENT DATES. THIS IS NOT A CASE THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE INCURRED WITH A VIEW TO REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTION AND OBTAIN A CLEAR TITLE TO THE PROPERTY BEFORE SALE AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER SUCH EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED U/S 48(I) OF THE I . T. ACT. 3.8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO 1 &2 ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. AR EXPLAINED IN HIS ARGUMENT HOW THE PRO PERTY WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS GRANDMOTHER . HE SUBMITTED THAT MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR IS THE SISTER OF ASSESSEE WHO THROUGH HER LAWYER GAVE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THE RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY. HE SUBMITS THAT EVEN IF AS PER THE E NTIRE RECORD THE SAID MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR HAS NO RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD TO M/S. SUVIDHA DEVELOPERS BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO SETTLE WITH MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR AS THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND M/S. SUVIDHA DEV ELOPERS COULD NOT HAVE COMPLETED THE DEAL. HE SUBMITS THAT IT WAS A COMPULSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR . HE PLEADED FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION. PER CONTRA THE LD. DR WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND / PROPERTY SITUATED AT PIRANGUT TAL. - MULASHI DISTT. - PUNE AND HE GOT THE SAID PROPERTY THROUGH THE WILL EXECUTED BY HIS LATE GRANDMOTHER MRS. SHANTABAI SHRINIWAS PHULMAMDIKAR. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAL E DEED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. SUVIDHA DEVELOPERS IT IS SEEN THAT HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY IS GIVEN. 7 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE IT IS STATED THAT THERE WAS A PROPERTY BEARING GUT NO. 345 (NEW) AND GUT NO. 1567A (OLD) IN VILLAGE - PIRANGUT TAL. - MULSHI DISTT. - PUNE ADMEASURING AN AREA OF 3 HECTOR AND 8 R. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS DEVOLVED TO LATE SHRI SHANKAR SHRINIWAS PHULMAMDIKAR SINCE PRIOR TO 1932. THERE WAS A FAMILY PARTITION OF LATE SHRI SHANKAR SHRINIWAS PHULMAMDIKAR AMONGST HIMSELF HIS WIFE SHANTABAI AND SON ARIVIND. THE SAID PARTITION WAS RECORDED BY A DEED OF PARTITION DATED 08 - 01 - 1932 WHICH WAS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR H AVELI . AS PER THE SAID PARTITION DEED DATED 08 - 01 - 1932 THE SAID PROPERTY/LAND WAS GIVEN TO THE SHARE OF MRS. SHANTABAI SHANKARRAO PHULMA MDIKAR WHO IS THE GRANDMOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. LATE SHRI SHANKARRAO SHRINIWAS PHULMAMDIKAR HAD EXECUTED A WILL DATED 22 - 03 - 1976 WHICH WAS ALSO REGISTERED ON 09 - 07 - 1980 IN WHICH LATE SHRI SHANKARRAO PHULMAMDIKAR CONFIRMED THE PARTITION AND ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF HIS WIFE MRS. SHANTABAI. MRS. SHANTABAI HAD ALSO EXECUTED HER WILL DATED 15 - 03 - 1976 WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 15 - 07 - 1980 . AS PER THE WILL MADE BY LATE MRS. SHANTABAI SHE BEQUEATHED THE SAI D LAND ABSOLUTELY TO THE SON OF HER GRANDSON RAM ALIAS VIJAY SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF RAM TO TAKE INCOME THERE FROM DURING HIS LIFETIME. IN THE SAID WILL LATE SMT. SHANTABI MADE IT CLEAR THAT DAUGHTERS OF RAM ( ASSESSEES FATHER ) OR ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD NOT B E HAVING INTEREST IN THE SAID LAND. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER ALSO DIED SUBSEQUENTLY. ON THE DEMISE OF LATE SHRI SHANTABAI THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTERED INTO REVENUE RECORD. ON THE DATE OF DEATH OF SMT. SHANTABAI AS THE ASSESSEE WAS M INOR THE NAME OF HIS FATHER RAM ALIAS VIJAY WAS ALSO RECORDED IN REVENUE RECORD AS HIS GUARDIAN BY MUTATION ENTRY NO. 212 DATED 16 - 08 - 1984. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ATTEND ED THE AGE OF MAJORITY THEREAFTER NAME OF HIS FATHER WAS REMOVED FROM THE REVENUE RECORD. IN THIS BACKGROUND NOW THE 8 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAD ONE SISTER NAMELY MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE INTEREST IN THE SAID PROPERTY. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SALE DEED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. SUVIDHA DEVELOPERS DATED 21 - 0 9 - 2007 PAGE NOS. 17 TO 40. NOWHERE IT IS MENTIONED IN THE SAID SALE DEED THAT MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR WAS HAVING ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. AS PER THE WILL WHICH IS ALSO REGISTERED AFTER THE DEATH OF MRS. SHANTABAI IN CLEAR TERMS THE ENTIRE INTEREST & TITLE IN THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER WAS ONLY GIVEN THE LIFE TIME ENJOYMENT OF THE INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTY. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE COPY OF THE NOT ICE IN THE C OMPILATION AT PAGE NOS. 57 AND 58 AND ENGLIS H TRANSLATION PAGE NO. 59 WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY THE MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR TO THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID NOTICE IT IS SEEN THAT IT IS VERY CRYPTIC AND DOES NOT MENTION HOW THE MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR WAS HAVING ANY INTEREST IN T HE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS THAT GENUINENESS OF THE ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTED. IN OUR OPINION MERELY BECAUSE THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR THAT WILL NOT GIVE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TH E DEDUCTION UNLESS THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATE THAT IN FACT MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE SAID PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO CERTAINLY STRANGE THAT NO RELEASE DEED IS EXECUTED NOR THERE IS ANY REFERENCE IN THE SALE DEED WITH M/S. SUVIDHA DEVELO PERS IN RESPECT OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR . EVEN MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR IS NOT MADE CONFIRMING PARTY NO R EVEN THE WITNESS TO THE SALE DEED WHICH ARE SOME OF THE IMPORTANT ASPECT S TO LOOK INTO. THE LD. AR HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. CIT VS. MISS PIROJA C. PATEL 242 ITR 582 (BOM). II. B.N. PINTO VS. CIT 96 ITR 306 (MYS). III. MRS. JUNE PERRETT VS. ITO 298 ITR 268. 9 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE IV. CIT VS. T SREENIVASA RAO 166 ITR 593 (AP) . V. ITO WARD - 1(4) VS. SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE & O RS. ITA NOS. 1053 TO 1055 1177 & 1178/PN/2011 DATED 31 - 12 - 2013. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THE CASE LAWS DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR . IN THE CASE OF MISS PIROJA C. PATEL (SUPRA) THERE WERE HUTMENT DWELLERS ON THE PROPERTY WHICH CLAIMED OCCUPANCY RIGH TS OVER THE LAND AND HENCE THE PAYMENT TO THE HUTMENT DWELLERS WAS MADE AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT. IN THE CASE OF B.N. PINTO (SUPRA) THE ISSUE IS REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS LAWYERS FEE TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND DAMAGES FOR WR ONGFUL DETENTION OF PROPERTY ETC. IN THE SAID IT WAS HELD THAT THE DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DETENTION OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. THEREFORE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 48(I) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF MR S. JUNE PERRETT (SUPRA) THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO EVICT UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANT TO THE PROPERTY AND THE SAID OCCUPANT WAS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AS A COST OF IMPROVEMENT U/S. 48 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF T SREENIVASA RAO (SUPRA) AGAIN THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO PROTECTED TENANTS . IN OUR OPINION IN ALL THE ABOVE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR THERE WAS ENCROACHMENT ON THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF POSSESSION OR OTHERWISE . IN THE PRESENT CASE MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR HAS NO OTHERWISE ENCROACHMENT ON THE PROPERTY NOR ANY TITLE OR INTEREST . 7.1 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANTOSH SURESH BHORE & ORS. (SUPRA) THE ISSUE WAS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.10 LACS WHICH WAS PAID TO THE SISTERS/DAUGHTERS OF THE BHORE FAMILY WHO HAVE SURRENDERED THEIR RIGHTS IN THE LAND AND WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. IN THE SAID CASE ALSO THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE CHEQUES . A H AKKA SOD PATRA (DEED OF RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHTS) HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS ON 28 - 0 8 - 2006 AND AT THAT TIME THE CONSIDERATION OF RELINQUISHMENT FOR RIGHTS HAD NOT BEEN 10 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE PA ID BUT IT WAS PAID SUBSEQUENTLY. AS PER THE FACTS ON RECORD IN THE SAID CASE THE PROPERTY WAS BELONGING TO THE BHORE FAMILY AND IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE DEED OF THE RELIN QUISHMENT OF THE RIGHTS THAT THE SAID ANCESTRAL LANDS WERE OWNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BHORE FAMILY AND FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE BHORE FAMILY WHO WERE PAID THE SAID SUM WERE THE MARRIED DAUGHTERS. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT BY SAID ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE HIN DU LAW THE SAID MARRIED FEMALE MEMBERS HAD LIMITED RIGHTS OF MAINTENANCE IN THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY. IN OUR OPINION THERE WAS NO DISPUTE IN THE SAID CASE IN RESPECT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE FEMALE MEMBERS IN THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS BELONGING TO THE BH ORE FAMILY AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE SAID ASSESSEE BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO RELEASE DEED OR ANY OTHER DEED OR ANY AGREEMENT NOR THERE IS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE RIGHTS OF MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR . WE THER EFORE HOLD THAT THE DECISION RELIED ON THE LD. AR IN DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7.2 W E THEREFORE HOLD THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT TO HIS SISTER MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR THE SAID PAYMENT WAS NOT FOR REMOVING ANY ENCUMBRANCE . MOREOVER AS PER THE WILL AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THE SAID MRS. AARTI SAMEER NIMGAONKAR WAS NOT HAVING ANY INTEREST IN TITLE OF ANY PROPERTY. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DENIED RS.16 00 000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY GR OUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 IS IN RESPECT OF PARTLY ALLOWING THE COST OF TREES STANDING IN THE PROPERTY. THE LAND/PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PRIOR TO 01 - 04 - 1981 HENCE THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION BY APPLYING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSEE RS.11 60 000/ - AS A VALUE OF TREES WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) 11 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE AND LD. CI T(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF FMV AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF TREES WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE RS.11 60 000/ - T HE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPROVED VALUERS REPORT . T HE ASSESSING OFFI CER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I. NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND NO BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE VALUE OF TREES AT RS.11 60 000/ - . II. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD ON AS IS WHERE IS BASIS. III. NO SEPARATE DEMARCATION OF SALE PROCEEDS IN L AND VALUE AND TREES VALUE. IV. THE ABILITY OF THE VALUER IS BEYOND NATURAL PROBABILITY. V. NO EVIDENCE THAT TREES EXISTED AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.4 11 980/ - AS AGAINST OF RS.11 60 000/ - . THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER: 4.2 THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ALSO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE EXISTENCE OF THE MANGO TREES ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD IS SUPPORTED BY THE WILL AND ALSO THE SALE DEED WHICH HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH M/S SUVIDHA PROPERTIES AND THE VALUERS REPORT ALSO CONFIRMS THE FACT WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF MANGO TREES. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN SOLD IN F.Y. 2007 - 08 WHEN THE EXISTENCE OF MANGO TREES ALONG WITH OTHER TREES HAD BEEN MENT IONED AND THE WILL DATED 15.03.1976 ALSO REFERS TO THE EXISTENCE OF TREES. THOUGH THE NUMBER OF TREES EXISTING AT THE TIME WHEN WILL WAS WRITTEN IS NOT MENTIONED NEITHER THE DATE ON WHICH THE SAID TREES WERE PLANTED HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN ANY CASE THE TREES ON THE LAND BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD AVAILABLE AND WHICH INDICATE THE TREES TO BE NEARLY 30 YEARS OLD THOUGH THE SAME MAY BE MORE. THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE YIELD OF THE MANGO TREES SO AS TO JUDGE ITS ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE H AS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT AND THE EARNINGS MADE ON AN YEAR TO YEAR BASIS AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS ALSO NOT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT SO AS TO HELP IN ARRIVING AT ITS PROPER VALUE THEREFORE THE 12 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE BASIS OF ITS VALUATION IS VERY MUCH CORRECT AND BECOMES IMPORTANT AND IS OF RELEVANCE. HOWEVER THE VALUE OF THE TREES AS ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF ASSOCIATE VALUER (HORTICULTURE) CLEARLY INDICATES THE EXISTENCE OF TREES AND T HIS FACT ALSO CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. NONETHELESS OUT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES AS INDICATED BY THE VALUER AND AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THE MANGO TREES ARE OF ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE AS THE SAME ARE YIELDING FRUITS HOWEVER IF THE TREES DO NOT BEAR FRUITS THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE WOOD IS MUCH LESS IN COMPARISON TO 'TEAK' 'SAGAWAN' AND 'SHISHAM' WHICH ARE TRADITIONALLY MORE IMPORTANT AND WIDELY USED FOR ITS GOOD QUALITY AND DURABILITY OF WOOD. IT IS A MATTER OF CPMMON KN OWLEDGE THAT IN RESPECT OF MANGO TREES WHICH WERE FULLY YIELDING AS ON 01.04.1981 BUT HAD BECOME OLD AND UNYIELDING AT THE TIME OF SALE THERE COULD BE NEGLIGIBLE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON SUCH SALE. REGARDING THE OTHER TREES WHICH HAS GROWN OVER THE LAND ARE SPONTANEOUS GROWTH WHICH HAVE GROWN OVER THE YEARS INTO TREES AND ARE OF NOT MUCH ECONOMIC VALUE. THUS THE VALUE OF 169 MANGO TREES HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE VALUER AT RS. 11 60 000 / - WHICH WORKS OUT AT NEARLY RS.6864 / - PER MANGO TREES AS ON 1.4.1981 AND THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.5.15 LACS. THUS THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE VALUER PRIMA FACIE APPEARS ON A HIGHER SIDE. 4.3 SO FAR AS THE INFERENCE THAT SALE OF SHADE TREES WHICH AFTER BEING CUT ARE NOT CAPABLE OF REGENER ATION WOULD CONSTITUTE CAPITAL RECEIPTS IS ESTABLISHED LAW EVEN AS DECIDED IN V. VENUGOPALA VARMA RAJAH VS CIT (1970) 76 ITR 460 (SC) AND THIS WAS FOLLOWED IN STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS SMT. SOUNDARA RAJAN (2000) 241 ITR 428 (MAD). THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL IN A NUMBER OF CASES UPHELD LIABILITY IN SUCH CASES OF SALE OF OLD TREES AS PERCENTAGE OF RECEIPTS WERE AS A MATTER OF ESTIMATE. THE ISSUE OF SALE OF SHADE TREES HAD COME UP IN EMERALD VALLEY ESTATES LTD VS CIT (1996) 222 ITR 799 (KAR) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM SUCH SALE OF SHADE TREES WOULD BE TAXED AS NON - AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT HAD ALSO OBSERVED THAT UNLIKE GOODWILL IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT NO COST OF ACQUISITION CAN AT ALL BE CONCEIVED OR ENVISAGED IN RESPECT OF A CAPITAL ASSET LIKE SHADE TREES PURCHASED AS A PART AND PARCEL OF A YIELDING COFFEE ESTATE. THE REMOVAL OF TREES IS A POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR 13 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE CAPITAL RECEIPTS FOR THE ESTATE OWNERS AND ARE THEREFORE BOUND TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHILE FIXING THE PRICE OF THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE. SO ALSO IS THE POSITION WITH THE PURCHASER WHO TOO IS BOUND TO BE INFLUENCED BY THE NUMBER OF SHADE TREES STANDING IN PARTICULAR ESTATE WHICH HE PROPOSES TO BUY AND WHICH MAY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME BRING BACK A SIZEABLE PART OF HIS I NVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF SALE PROCEEDS. IT IS NOT THEREFORE AS THOUGH SHADE TREES EXISTING IN AN ESTATE ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT OR SO INSIGNIFICANT IN THEIR VALUE THAT THEY CAN AS WELL BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE PURCHASER WITHOUT ANY COST WHATSO EVER. IT IS NOT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ENVISAGE OR EVEN CONCEIVE OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION. IT HELD FURTHER THAT IN TERMS OF SEC. 48 WHAT IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSET IS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AND THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT THERETO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE COURT UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SALE OF TREES WOULD GIVE RISE TO CAPITAL GAINS AND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THE SHADE TREES AT RS.1 50 000 / - . THE TRIBUNAL HAD ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS.I.50 LACS BASED O N THE PRICE OF THE COFFEE LAND IN THE YEAR 1980 - 81 WHICH WAS AROUND 20 000 TO 25 000 PER ACRE. THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE OF THE SHADE TREES STANDING ON THE COFFEE ESTATE COULD BE TAKEN TO BE APPROXIMATELY 1710 TH OF THE TOTAL PRICE PAID BY THE ASSESS FEE AND ON THAT BASIS WORKED OUT THE COST OF THE SHADE TREES AT RS.1 50 000 / - . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AS ON 01.04.1981 OF MANGO TREES AT RS. 11 60 000 / - WHEREAS THE COST OF LAND IS ONLY RS.5 15 000 / - WHICH PRIMA FACIE DOES NOT GIVE THE CORRECT PICTURE OF VALUATION AND THE INDEXATION VALUE OF THE SAID TREES HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS.63 91 600 / - AGAINST THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 2 27 00 000/ - AND ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE ANALOGY AS TAKEN BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE COST IS TAKEN AT 1/10 TH OF THE TOTAL PRICE RECEIVED WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.22 70 000 / - AS AGAINST 63 91 600 / - TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) AS ON 01.04.1981 OF RS.22 70 000 / - (1/10 TH OF PRICE RECEIVED) WILL BE WORKED A PPROXIMATELY AT RS.4 11 980 / - . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH IS PLACED IN THE COMPILATION AT PAGE N OS. 51 TO 56. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT THERE WERE 169 MANGO TREES AND ALSO OTHER TREES. THE APPROVED VALUER IS HAVING THE PHD IN THE HORTICULTURE WHO HAS MADE THE VALUATION OF THE TREES AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AT RS.11 60 000/ - . IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS GIVEN THE NAME OF AMBA RAI. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE GOVT. APPROVED AGRICULTURAL VALUER THEN THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE GOVT. VALUER FOR VALUATION IF THE VALUATION REPORT WAS N OT ACCEPTED. NOTHING HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WHY THE VALUATION MADE BY THE APPROVED VALUER IS NOT CORRECT. WE THEREFORE ALLOW THE GROUND NO. 2 AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE VALUATION OF THE TREES AS MADE BY THE APPROVED VALUER AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AND ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 11. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 3 IS CONCERNED THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE HE I S NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 3. AS GROUND NO. 3 IS NOT PRESSED THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 1131/PN/2012. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE MULTIPLE GROUNDS BUT GROUND NO. 3 IS THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN ADOPTING THE VALUE OF THE TREES AS ON 01 - 04 - 1981 AT RS.4 11 980/ - WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED THAT THE MANGO TREES PLANTED ON OR BEFORE 1981 MUST HAVE LOST ITS YIELD AND THEREBY ECONOMIC VALUE AND THAT THE OTHER RAIVAL TREES HAD NO ECONOMIC VALUE. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE 15 ITA NO S. 1070 & 1131/PN/2012 MR. ABHIJIT VIJAY PHULMAMDIKAR PUNE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF VALUE OF TREES AS ON 01 - 04 - 19 81. W HILE DECIDING THE GROUND IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL W E HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION HENCE THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE HAS TO BE DISMISSED ON THE ISSUE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TREES AS ON 01 - 04 - 1 981. ACCORD INGLY ALL GROUNDS IN REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 - 11 - 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCO UNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED : 28 TH NOVEMBER 201 4 RK/PS COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT(A) - II PUNE 4 THE CIT - II PUNE 5 6 THE DR ITAT B BENCH PUNE. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE