M/s APCO Concrete Blocks and Allied Products , Bangalore v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 617/BANG/2019 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2019 | Result: Partly Allowed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 61721114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAVFA9128J
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 617/BANG/2019
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant M/s APCO Concrete Blocks and Allied Products , Bangalore
Respondent Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 06-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 26-09-2019
First Hearing Date 26-09-2019
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 29-03-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 APCO CONCRETE BLOCKS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS NO.805 14 TH CROSS I PHASE J.P NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078. PAN AAVFA 9128 J VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1) BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. VANI H ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.11.2019 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 30-01-2019 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-4 BENGALURU AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED SEVERAL GROUNDS ALL OF THEM ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A SINGLE ISSUE VIZ. THE DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 OF THE INDUSTRIAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDUSTRIAL LAND HAVING AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRES AND 2 GUNTAS. THIS IS THIRD ROUND OF PROCEEDING. IN THE FIRST ROUND THE ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 11 TRIBUNAL NOTICED THAT THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FROM ONE OF ITS PARTNERS BY WAY OF HIS CAPITAL INTR ODUCTION. THE CONCERNED PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED ON 01-04-1981 WITH AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 70 975/- TOWARDS THE VALUE O F LAND BROUGHT IN BY HIM INTO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS HIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE SAID LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN ON SALE OF ABOVE SAID LAND THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AS RS.30.00 LAKHS. THE AO REJECTED TH E SAME AND HE ADOPTED THE VALUE OF RS.2 70 975/- AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAS VALUED THE LA ND AT RS.2 70 975/- AS ON 1.4.1981 WHEN THE PARTNER INTR ODUCED THE LAND INTO PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS HIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUT ION. WHEN THE DISPUTE REACHED THE ITAT THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIE W THAT THE VALUE OF RS.2 70 975/- ADOPTED FOR BOOK PURPOSES IS ONLY A NOTIONAL VALUE AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. IN THE SECOND ROUND THE AO ADOPTED THE VERY SAME VALU E OF RS.2 70 975/- AS ON 1.4.1981 AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUT ED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE SECOND ROUND THE TRIBUNAL O BSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY IT IN TH E FIRST ROUND. ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED AGAIN TO THE FI LE OF THE AO. 3. IN THE THIRD ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS THE AO C ALLED FOR DETAILS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE FROM VARIOUS SUB-REGISTRAR OFFI CE LOCATED AROUND THE IMPUGNED LAND. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE IMPUGNE D LAND WAS LOCATED IN 7 TH MILE 4 TH FURLONG KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD KHATA ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 11 NO.1004/832/1015/1 SY NO.46/2A1B WHICH FELL IN TH E JURISDICTION OF DODDKALASANDRA VILLAGE. THE EXTENT OF LAND WAS 2 ACRES AND 3 GUNTAS AND THE SAME WAS CONVERTED INTO INDUSTRIAL LAND FROM THE STATUS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE SUB-REG ISTRARS REPORTED THAT THE GUIDE LINE RATES FIXED BY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA WAS AVAILABLE ONLY FROM 1989 ONWARDS IN RESPECT OF CONV ERTED LANDS. THE VALUE OF CONVERTED LAND PER ACRE IN DODAKALLASA NDRA VILLAGE FOR FY 1989-90 WAS RS.21 500/-. BY ADOPTING THE COST I NFLATION INDEX PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT THE AO MADE BACK WARD CALCU LATION AND ARRIVED AT THE VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.12 500/- PER ACRE. ACCORDINGLY THE AO DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AT RS.25 625/-. BEFORE THE AO THE A SSESSEE HAD PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE VALUATION REPORT OBTAINE D FROM GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. THE AO REJECTED THE SA ME BY CITING FOLLOWING REASONS:- 11. THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON FOUR 'COUNTS. FIRSTLY IT IS S EEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE VALUATION WAS DONE WITH REFERENCES TO RESIDENTIAL SITES AND NOT INDUSTRIAL LAND. THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT AS PER FORM NO. 22 THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE WAS APPLIED FOR INDUS TRIAL CONVERTED LAND OF BANASHANKARI AREA IN THE YEAR 1982-83 THE DATA PROVIDED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR IS OF THE RESIDENTIAL SITES. THE DIFFERENCE OF MEASUREMEN T OF AN OPEN AREA AND RESIDENTIAL SITES IS INDICATED BY ACRE AND SFT RESPECTIVELY AND THE SUB REGISTRAR HAS PROVIDED AS PER SG.FT. SECONDLY THE COMPARABLE REFERENCES MADE BY THE VALUER IS NOT THE SAME AS TH E PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN DODDAKALASANDRA VILLAGE WHICH IS AWAY FROM THE CITY LIMITS WHEREAS THE VALUATION IS ADOPTED WITH REFERENCE TO BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE WHICH IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. THIRDLY THE VALUER IN PART II OF THE REPORT HAS STATED THAT ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 11 ENQUIRIES WERE CARRIED OUT WITH A NUMBER OF OLD REA L ESTATE AGENTS TO KNOW THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. THIS OFFICE HAS ALSO LEARNT UPON DISCREET ENQUIRY W ITH A LOT OF OLD REAL ESTATE AGENTS THAT RS. 33 PER SQ FT WAS NOT ACCURATE. SINCE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ESTIMAT E CANNOT BE UNDISPUTED. THE ASSESEE IN HIS SUBMISSION HAD STATED THAT NO SPECIFIC ENQUIRIES HAS BEEN MADE TO THE VALUER AND THAT NO SITE VISIT HAS BEEN CARRI ED OUT BY THIS OFFICE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEEE WAS EXTENDED EVERY OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLE TO SUBSTANTIATE PROVIDING COPIES OBTAINED FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR'S AND TO JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIM. BESIDES THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROOF THAT THE VALUER FROM WHOM THE VALUATION WAS DONE IS AUTHENTIC AND THAT HIS VALUATION IS BEYOND DOUBT. THESE CONTENTION IS JUST TO HOODWINK THE DEPARTMENT INTO JUSTIFYING THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED. IF THE ASSESSEE SO WISHED TO PROVE THAT THE VALUER IS GENUINE IT IS H IS RIGHT TO PRODUCE THE VALUER AND EXPLAIN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE AUTHENTICITY OF HIS VALUATIO N. THE OFFICE HAS NEVER DEBARRED THE ASSESSEE FROM EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS TO PRODUCE THE VALUER. NO REQ UEST HAS BEEN RECEIVE IN THIS REGARD FROM THE ASSESSEE. FOURTHLY WHEN THE SUB REGISTRARS THEMSELVES STATED THAT THE CONVERTED VALUE FOR SUCH LANDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THEIR RECORDS AND ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD SAID THAT THERE WERE NOT MANY INDUSTRIALLY CONVERTE D LANDS IN THAT AREA HOW THE VALUER GOT AN ESTIMATE AT RS. 30 PER SQFT IS DOUBTFUL. IN THAT CASE WHY DID THE ASSESSEE ENTER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 70 975/- AS THE BOOK VALUE AND NOT RS. 30 LAKHS. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSET WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS PARTNER'S CAPI TAL ACCOUNT. HENCE DUE TO THE ABOVE REASONS THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 30 LAKHS IS FOUND TO BE DOUBTFUL HENCE INCORRECT. THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 11 4. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS O BTAINED A VALUATION REPORT FROM A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER WHO HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND BY CIT ING CERTAIN SALE INSTANCES AND ALSO BY MAKING DUE ENQUIRIES FROM LAN D BROKERS. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN SUPPORT OF REPORT OBTAINED FROM SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICER AND MOST OF THE M PERTAINED TO AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RESIDENTIAL PLOTS. SHE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDUSTRIAL LAND AND HENCE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE RATES PERTAINI NG TO AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PLOTS. FURTHER THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE FIXED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTION OF STAMP DUTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE LD A.R PLACED HER RELIANCE ON THE F OLLOWING CASE LAW AND ALSO ON OTHER CASE LAWS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOO K FILED BY THE ASSESSEE:- (A) JAWAJEE NAGNATHAM VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFI CER (1994)(4 SCC 595) (B) CIT VS. DR D D MUNDRA (ITA NO.2931/2005 DATED 6.4.2010)(KAR) THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MENTIO NED THAT HE HAS ALSO MADE LOCAL ENQUIRIES BUT THE RESULTS OF S UCH ENQUIRIES WERE NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE THUS VIOLATI NG THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE INSTANCES REFERRED BY THE APPROVED VALUER PERTAINS TO RESIDEN TIAL PLOTS LOCATED IN A DEVELOPED AREA WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS I. E. BANASANKARI ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 6 OF 11 2 ND STAGE. HOWEVER IMPUGNED LAND IS AN INDUSTRIAL LA ND AND THE SAME IS LOCATED OUTSIDE MUNICIPAL LIMITS FAR AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PLOTS REFERRED BY THE VALUER. HENCE TH E AO HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE RATES AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL P LOTS (SMALLER SIZE) LOCATED IN A DEVELOPED AREA CANNOT FORM THE BASIS F OR VALUING AN INDUSTRIAL LAND (BIGGER SIZE). HENCE THE AO HAS RI GHTLY REJECTED THE VALUATION REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SUB-REGISTRAR RATES REASONABLY I NDICATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND HENCE THE SAME WAS ADOPTED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY HE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY L D CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 6. WE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS WHOLLY PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE VALU ATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE APPROVED VALUER AND THE SAME IS PLACED AT PA GES 140 TO 143 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WOULD SHO W THAT THE VALUER HAS REFERRED TO EIGHT SALE INSTANCES AND ALL OF THEM PERTAIN TO SALE OF HOUSING PLOTS ADMEASURING 1750 SQ.FT. TO 2400 SQ.FT.. THE VALUER HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIO NED 8 RESIDENTIAL PLOTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN A DISTANCE OF 2.5 KMS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. BASED ON THE SALE VALUE MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED OF THE EIGHT PLOTS THE VALUER HAS ARRIVED AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.33.19 PER SQ.FT. ACCORDINGLY HE HAS VALUED THE IMPUGNED LAN D AT RS.30.00 LAKHS AS ON 1.4.1981. 7. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE VA LUE OF A RESIDENTIAL PLOT LOCATED IN A WELL-DEVELOPED AREA THAT TOO LOC ATED WITHIN ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 7 OF 11 MUNICIPAL LIMITS WOULD COMMAND HIGHER RATE THAN AN INDUSTRIAL LAND LOCATED OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS IN AN UND ER DEVELOPED AREA. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE AO THE RESIDE NTIAL PLOTS ARE GENERALLY QUOTED AT THE RATE PER SQ.FT. WHILE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND/INDUSTRIAL LAND WOULD BE QUOTED AT THE RATE PE R ACRE. FURTHER IT IS A GENERAL RULE THAT THE BIGGER THE SIZE OF PL OTS LOWER THE PRICE IT COULD FETCH. THIS RULE IS APPLICABLE EVEN TO RESID ENTIAL PLOTS LOCATED IN A WELL-DEVELOPED AREA. WHEN THE QUESTIONS RELAT E TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS/INDUSTRIAL LANDS THE RATES ARE QUOTED FOR P ER ACRE AND THE SAME WOULD BE FAR LESSER THAN THE RATES QUOTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PLOTS. HENCE WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO THAT T HE SALE INSTANCES OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS TH E BASIS FOR VALUING THE IMPUGNED INDUSTRIAL LAND. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE IS STRONGLY OPPOSING THE SUB-REGISTRAR RATES ADOPTED B Y THE AO WHEREAS IT APPEARS THAT THE SALE INSTANCES OF RESID ENTIAL PLOTS ADOPTED BY THE VALUER ARE ALSO RELATED TO THE RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR. HENCE WE AGREE WITH THE REASONING G IVEN BY THE AO FOR REJECTING THE VALUERS REPORT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY US IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS. 8. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE SUB-REGISTRAR RATES AVAILABLE FOR THE YEAR 1989 AND HAS BACK WORK ED THE SAME IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4. 1981 BY ADOPTING COST INFLATION INDEX PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT. IN TH E CASE OF JAWAJEE NAGANATHAN (SUPRA) AND DR D D MUNDRA (SUPRA) HON'B LE APEX COURT AND HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RESPECTIVELY HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THE SUB-REGISTRAR RATES CANN OT BE CONSIDERED AS FAIR MARKET VALUE. HENCE THE APPROACH OF THE AO CANNOT ALSO BE ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 8 OF 11 SUSTAINED ON THIS COUNT ALONE. SINCE IT WAS STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS LOCATED ABOUT 2.50 KMS AWAY FROM THE CITY LIMITS THE SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT SHOULD ALSO INFLUE NCE THE MARKET RATES. IN ANY CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT EV EN THE SUB-REGISTRAR RATES WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE YEAR 1981. 9. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAD ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.2 70 975/- I N THE FIRST AND SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS. AS NOTICED EARLIER THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT WAS THE VALUE CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUN T OF THE PARTNER WHO INTRODUCED THE IMPUGNED LAND INTO THE FIRM. TH E ABOVE SAID VALUE WAS HELD TO BE A NOTIONAL VALUE BY THE TRIBUN AL AND IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981. HOWEVER IN THE THIRD ROUND THE AO HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF IMPUGNED INDUSTRIAL LAND AT RS.25 625/- WHICH WAS MUCH LOWER THAN THE VALUE OF RS.2 70 975/-. WE HAVE HELD THAT THE VALUATION REP ORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE AO AND AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 DETERMINED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF SUB-REGISTRAR RATES WAS ALSO NOT CORRECT. 10. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE IND USTRIAL LAND LOCATED OUTSIDE MUNICIPAL LIMITS FAR AWAY FROM THE DEVELOPED AREAS WOULD CERTAINLY COMMAND LOWER RATE. FURTHER THE MAR KET RATE OF A PLOT/LAND IS DEPENDENT UPON VARIOUS FACTORS. FOR E XAMPLE WE HAVE NOTICED EARLIER THAT EVEN BETWEEN THE PLOTS/LAND H AVING SAME CHARACTERISTICS THE BIGGER PLOT/LAND WOULD COMMAND LOW RATES THAN ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 9 OF 11 THE SMALLER PLOT/LAND. FURTHER THE SIZE OF THE PLO T/LAND LOCATION ACCESS TO MAIN ROAD AVAILABILITY OF OTHER AMENITIE S ETC. WOULD ALSO DETERMINE THE MARKET RATES. THE LD A.R CONTENDED BE FORE US THAT THE SALE INSTANCES CITED BY THE VALUER ARE WITHIN 2 .50 KMS AND HENCE THE SAME CAN ALSO BE ADOPTED. HOWEVER THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OR POSITIVE FACTORS RELATED TO THE LAND WHICH WOULD ENABLE IT TO COMMAN D HIGHER RATES. HENCE THE SO CALLED SHORTER DISTANCE ALONE COULD NO T BE A FACTOR THAT SHOULD INFLUENCE A PROBABLE BUYER TO PAY THE SAME R ATES AS ARE AVAILABLE TO A RESIDENTIAL PLOT LOCATED IN A DEVELO PED AREA. 11. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES COU LD BRING ON RECOED ANY COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES OF SIMILARLY PLACED L AND. HENCE WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO ESTIMATE THE PROBABLE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABL E MATERIAL. THE VALUER HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.33.19 PER SQ.FT. ON THE BASIS OF SALE INSTANCES OF DEVELOPED HOUSING SITES LOCATED W ITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. FURTHER THE IMPUGNED LAND IS LO CATED WITHIN 2.50 KMS OF MUNICIPAL LIMITS. IN OUR VIEW THESE FACTO RS COULD BE TAKEN AS A GUIDANCE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE PARTICULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER SALE INSTA NCES FOR LAND OF IDENTICAL NATURE. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT AN INDUSTRIAL LAND WOULD COMMAND HIGHER RATE THAN AN A GRICULTURAL LAND. HENCE ON A CONSPECTUS OF THE MATTER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS CONTROVERSY MAY BE PUT TO REST BY ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF IMPUGNED LAND AT 1/3 RD VALUE OF RATE DETERMINED BY THE APPROVED VALUER I.E. AT RS.11/- PER SQ.FT. ACCOR DINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DETERMINE THE ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 10 OF 11 FAIR MARKET VALUE OF IMPUGNED LAND BY ADOPTING THE RATE OF RS.11/- PER SQ.FT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED 6 TH NOVEMBER 2019. / VMS / COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE. ITA NO.617/BANG/2019 PAGE 11 OF 11 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER .