Per K.P.T. Thangal, Vice President: These appeals are by assessee and revenue and pertain to assessment year 1997-98. ITA No. 4095/M/2002 2. only objection by assessee is against order of CIT(A) in confirming order of Assessing Officer that auction sale of its plot of land at Aundh had given rise to capital gain exigible to tax. 3. facts leading to dispute are briefly as under:- Assessee filed return on 27-6-1997 declaring income at Rs. 7,98,51,710. Assessment was completed under section 143(1)(a) on 19-2-1998 accepting returned income. Subsequently assessee filed revised return on 17-12-1997 declaring income at Rs. 7,90,70,840. reason for revised return is recorded vide para 1 of assessment order which reads as under:- 'In order to return correct amount of interest on Bank Fixed Deposits. In this case it must be noted that State Bank of India-Pune Branch with which amount of Rs. 92,500,135 has been placed as fixed deposit for 117 days has not deducted any taxed at source as laid down in section 194A. Whereas at time of filing original return it was presumed that rate of interest on fixed deposit was 10 per cent and Bank had deducted tax from interest @ 20 per cent thereby giving net interest income of Rs. 23,72,058. factual position was ascertained by assessee through its advocate, who in turn ascertained facts by making relevant application to Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Civil Court Pune.' 4. Subsequently case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) was issued. Assessee's source of income being capital gain, interest from bank, dividend on shares, etc. show- cause notice was issued dated 11-12- 1999, which is reproduced below:- ' (i) During course of assessment proceedings of income-tax assessment year 1997-98, it is noticed from records and valuation report dated 15-6-1996 obtained from Government Approved Valuer, land at Shringanda and Limper Gaon, at Aundh, has been valued Rs. 99,00,000 as on 1-4-1981. (ii) On perusal of wealth tax return for assessment year 1981-82 it is noticed that value of land at Shringanda and Limper Gaon at Aundh was shown at Rs. 80,000 as on 31-3-1981. (iii) While finalizing wealth-tax assessment order for assessment year 1981-82, Assessing Officer assessed value of land at Shringanda Rs. 8,784 and land at Limper Gaon at Rs. 1,41,620 as on 31-3-1981 (Total Rs. 1,50,404). (iv) valuation adopted by Assessing Officer in assessment has not been challenged by you. (v) It can be observed from above valuation that Government Approved Valuer has valued said property about 124 time more than value shown by assessee and about 60 times more than assessed value in Assessment Order. (vi) In circumstances, valuation report of Government Approved Valuer is not logical and cannot be accepted. (vii) You are, therefore, requested to show cause as to why valuation made by Government Approved Valuer should not be rejected that as assessed by Assessing Officer in Wealth tax Assessment Order be accepted while computing Capital Gain for assessment year 1997-98. (viii) Your explanation should reach this office within 15 days of receipt of this letter with supporting evidences, if any, to substantiate your claim, failing which value of Aundh property will be taken at Rs. 1,50,404 as on 1-4- 1981 for purpose of computing capital gain for assessment year 1997- 98.' 5. In response to above notice assessee filed letter dated 28-2-2000, which reads as under:- 'Under instruction from Maharaja Madhavarao Scindia - Karta of Hindu Undivided Family of His Late Highness Sir J.M. Scindia we refer to your captioned communication calling upon our client to show cause as to why valuation made by Government approved valuer giving valuation of property transferred during year as on 31-3-1981 should not be rejected and value as assessed by Assessing Officer in wealth-tax Assessment Order for assessment year 1981-82 be while computing capital gains for assessment year 1997-98. In response we submit as under:- (i) During year ended 31-3-1997 plot situated at S. No. 169/H 1, Aundh, Pune - 411 007 owned by assessee was auctioned by income- tax department for total sale consideration of Rs. 107,700,000. (ii) For purpose of computation of capital gains of any asset cost of acquisition has to be determined in terms of provisions of section 48 read with sections 49 and 55 of Income-tax Act, 1961. In instant case said plot of land was owned by His Late Highness Sir J.M. Scindia from whom it devolved upon assessee. said plot of land, w e are being informed, became property of Scindia family on marriage of their ancestor Jivajirao Scindia (one of forefathers Sir J.M. Scindia) at time of his marriage to one 'Chimnibai' daughter of then ruler of Deccan viz., Peshwa, and said property was given to Chimnibai as 'choli bangdi'. 'Choli bangdi' according to custom prevailing in those days amongst then royal families was gift made to daughter at time of her marriage. In this connection it is submitted that neither then rulers - viz., Peshwas nor Scindias incurred any cost for acquiring this property. (iii) In view of above mentioned facts and circumstance it is clearly evident that said plot does not have any cost of acquisition and attention. In evident that said plot does not have any cost of acquisition and attention. In this regard is invited to following judicial pronouncements:- (a) Karnataka High Court judgment in case of Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1995] reported in 155 ITR on page 681. (b) Supreme Court judgment in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] reported in 128 ITR page 294. In view of propositions made by above mentioned pronouncements it is clearly evident that since in instant case there is no cost of acquisition of said plot charging section (section 48) loses its applicability and by applying ratio of above mentioned judicial pronouncements computation provisions also fail. (iv) Under circumstances we would like to submit that said transaction of acquisition of said plot by income-tax department falls outside purview of charge of capital gains as there is no cost of acquisition. (v) Without prejudice to above it is submitted that value taken in accordance with provisions of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 cannot be utilized for purposes of computation of capital gains to be charged in accordance with provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 because value of immov-able property as determined in wealth-tax assessment is binding on assessee under Wealth-tax Act, 1957.' 6. claim of assessee was rejected by learned Assessing Officer mainly on following reasons:- He held that report of approved Valuer cannot be relied upon. plot visited by Valuer on 21-5-1996 had undergone lot of change. report was based on site visit made way back on 21-5-1996. sale instances cited by approved Valuer related to much smaller plots which cannot be compared with plot of land in instant case of assessee. deduction of 25 per cent for open space, etc., is illogical. He held that any buyer has to split plot into several parts for constructing residential buildings and to provide open space for each building. deduction towards such space in comparative case would be 50 per cent and not 25 per cent as taken by Valuer. plot of assessee is away from bus route, almost by 1 km. and value cannot be more than Rs. 300 per sq. mt. particularly because plot was only slowly developing as per Valuer himself. He further noted that, for plots reserved for museum, public buildings, etc. value was taken at Rs. 320 per sq. mt. in 1981. He held that it is highly illogical and Rs. 350 per sq. mt. is illogical for shops, etc. He further noted that for wealth tax assessment for assessment year 1981-82 value of plot was taken at Rs. 1,50,404, which was not objected by assessee. Hence he had taken same value against valuation of property submitted by assessee at Rs. 90,00,000. Aggrieved by above order assessee approached first appellate authority. 7. It was contended before CIT(A) that value of property has been taken as Nil. It was further submitted that plot of land was owned by Sir J.M. Scindia from whom it devolved upon assessee. This property became property of Scindia family on marriage of their ancestor Jivajirao Scindia (one of forefathers of Sir J.M. Scindia) at time of his marriage to Chimnibai, daughter of ruler of Deccan, i.e., Peshwa. property was given as choli bangdi. Choli bangdi, as per custom prevailing in those days amongst royal families, was gift to daughter at time of marriage. Consequentially, it was submitted that neither Peshwas nor Scindias incurred any cost of acquisition on this property. Hence it was reiterated that in light of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 681 and CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC), since there was no acquisition cost there could not be any capital gain tax either. Since there is no acquisition cost, plot cannot be brought into charge under section 45. Without prejudice it was again reiterated that value taken in accordance with provisions of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 cannot be utilized for purpose of computation of capital gains for reasons that value of immovable property determined in wealth-tax assessment is binding on assessee for reasons stated in para 5. Assessing Officer rejected valuation report of approved Valuer and adopted fair market value of plot as on 1-4-1988 at Rs. 1,50,404 and computed capital gains which assessee objected. 8. It was contended that since plot was received as gift by assessee's forebears and inherited by their progeny, its cost in hands of assessee is nil. Section 55(3) does state that where cost in hands of previous owner cannot be ascertained, cost of acquisition in hands of previous owner means fair market value on date on which capital asset became property of previous owner. It was submitted that even this provision pose no difficulty as cost in hands of Peshwas, who gifted land and Scindias, who received it, was nil. old revenue records were obtained from Government archives as evidence. CIT(A) states that these records merely show that land in Aundh village of Pune was 'Inam' land and that tenure was permanent. It is further recorded vide para 5.1 of his order that report (translation) of Inam Commission was furnished to show that as far back as 1-12-1885 land was recorded as Inam land which was received by way of choli bangdi. However, there was no confirmation of Inam, on whom and by whom and when it was conferred and whether there was or was not any cost to Peshwas at all. Before CIT(A) assessee further relied upon decision of Tribunal dated 23-8-1976 in assessee's own case for assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 wherein Tribunal held that assessee had many lands which were received as gift from various Kings at different points of time. basis for this finding was Gwalior State Gazetteer complied in 1908 by Capt. C.E. Lurad, Superintendent of Gazetteer in Central India, which includes text of Treaty of Peace and Friendship entered into between English East India Company and Maharaja Daulat Rao Scindia (an ancestor assessee) in 1803. Treaty mentions Inam lands, list of which also includes six village of Pune. Assessee contended that this indicate that Aundh land was also Inam land. CIT(A) opined that there is nothing to show that six villages of Pune included in Aundh land n d this contention, he held, runs contradictory to earlier claim that Aundh land was received by way of gift by Chimnibai from Peshwas. He held that Aundh land could not have been included in six villages of Pune as Inam by Daulat Rao for simple reason that Daulat Rao genealogically is two generations after Jivajirao to whom Chimnibai was married. He further held that lands listed in Article 8 of Treaty are thus not gifted to Scindias by various Kings of Hindustan. These other lands were separately listed in Article 7 of Treaty and comprise Districts of Dholepore, Baree and Raja Kerrah. 9. Assessee reiterated submission that since there was no acquisition cost either in hands of Peshwas or in hands of Scindias it is not exigible to tax. For above proposition assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT v. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji [1986] 162 ITR 93. In that case assessee was ex-ruler of State of Ratlam founded by late Maharaja Ratansinghji. jagir was conferred upon Shri Ratansinghji, forefather of assessee, as gift for some daring feat by then Emperor Shahjehan. property was passed down from generation to generation by inheritance, which was sold in 1976. ITO took cost of property at its FMV as on 1-1-1954 for computing capital gains. Court held that there was no cost in hands of Shri Ratansinghji from whom property was passed down and therefore there could not be capital gains either in hands of Shri Lokendrasinghji. It was contended that this decision squarely covers issue in instant case of assessee. 10. It was contended without prejudice to above that transfer of Aundh land is not exigible to capital gains, alternate contention raised before CIT(A) was that if at all transfer is charged to capital gains, FMV of land as on 1-4-1981 should be taken at Rs. 99,00,000 and not Rs. 1,50,404 which was amount treated in Wealth Tax. value taken in Wealth Tax was subjective estimate of Assessing Officer which was not based on any empirical criteria. No valuation of land was ever insisted upon or ordered by Wealth Tax Officer though it was duty of officer to take value correctly. Relying upon decision of Madras High Court in case of T. Kanagasabapathy Pillai v. CWT [1964] 51 ITR 146 wherein it was held that burden to determine correct value of asset in accordance with terms of statute is on revenue whereas assessee would endeavour to underestimate value. It was further submitted that in Wealth Tax matter value adopted by Wealth Tax Officer was suited to assessee, hence assessee did not agitate. However, in instant appeal assessee has assessee did not agitate. However, in instant appeal assessee has exercised its option in terms of section 55(2)(b)(ii) and obtained valuation report of property from approved Valuer. Assessing Officer has not even tried to rebut valuation in any manner whatsoever in spite of having relevant machinery and infrastructure. 11. Assessee also objected application of Wealth Tax principles in Income-tax case of assessee. Reliance was placed upon decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Saraswathi Estate v. CAIT [2001] 251 ITR 168 wherein it was held that interpretation of wordings in particular section cannot be made automatically applicable in context of interpretation of another enactment though both provisions under two enactments may b e meant for levying penalties. It was further contended that there was no condition precedent to application of section 55(2)(b)(ii). For above proposition assessee relied upon following decisions:- (a) CIT v. General Assurance Society Ltd. [1980] 121 ITR 727 (Cal.); (b) CIT v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 633 (Bom.); and (c) CIT v. Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 215 (Bom.). In principle, in these cases it was held that determining market value of asset as on 1-1-1954 for purpose of computing capital gains/compensation cannot be taken as basis to adopt compensation for other assets as well. It was further submitted that when section 55(2)(b)(ii) lays down that at option of assessee cost should be considered to be FMV as on 1-4-1981 and hence there cannot be estoppel against opportunity given to assessee by statute. 12. However contention of assessee was rejected by learned CIT(A). 13. Assessee's contention that plot of land became property of Scindia family by gift on marriage of their ancestor Jivajirao to Chimnibai was rejected firstly, as there was no evidence to that effect. He held, even otherwise on merit also assessee has no case. He held, there is no direct or indirect credible evidence to establish that there was no cost to Peshwas. Assessee himself has admitted lack of cogent evidence in this regard. Assessee's case hangs on dubious generalization that medieval monarchs always acquired territory either by wresting it by force or arms or through matrimony. CIT(A) held that history is replete with examples of rulers acquiring lands in exchange for goods or munitions, towards arrears of land revenue, as compensation for military or other services rendered and even by outright purchase as well. territories acquired as spoils of wars were those of enemy. In instant case land is in Pune - Peshwas' home turf. Besides turning history on its head, assessee's contention offends principle that evidence has to be specific to facts at issue. Sweeping generalizations cannot be paraded to prove particular facts at issue. He held that decision relied upon by assessee in case of H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji (supra) is not applicable. Land in that case was bestowed upon assessee's ancestor as jagir by Emperor Shahjehan. In instant case it is gift by Peshwa to his daughter. Peshwa thus became ancestor of subsequent Scindias. This is clear distinction, he held. In case cited forebears of Lokendrasinghji did not incur any cost for acquisition of land but not so in instant case as Peshwa was ancestor of assessee and assessee failed to prove that land had no cost in hands of Peshwa. Hence he decided issue against assessee. Assessee's alternative plea was accepted by CIT(A) vide paras 9.I to 10 of his order observing as under:- '9.I As regards FMV of lands as on 1-4-1981, it is manifest from even cursory perusal of assessment order under appeal that Assessing Officer has disposed of matter without due and proper consideration and requisite judiciousness. Several statements of Assessing Officer indicate this. Assessing Officer has caviled that one of reasons why report of Approved valuer could not be relied upon was that he visited plot on 21- 5-1996 'when entire situation is changed'. This, to my mind, is queer logic. It was only on sale of land in 1996-97 that FMV as on 1-4-1981 was required to be valued. Obviously the, valuer could not have visited site any earlier. Again, Assessing Officer carps that valuation report is ex parte because it is based on documents made available and information given by assessee to valuer. question is, could it be any other way? Where else will any valuer get documents and basic information in respect of land? 9.II On technical aspects Assessing Officer has debunked report for all wrong reasons. He had held that deduction of 25 per cent for open spaces etc., for whole plot made by valuer is illogical. 'Any buyer has to split plot into several parts for constructing residential buildings and open space will have to be provided around each building. Deduction towards could be as much as 50 per cent and not 25 per cent as taken by valuer. Assessing Officer did not realize that open spaces and set-backs have to be provided as per municipal and town planning rules and deduction has to be factored accordingly. Assessing Officer also did not realize that it is FSI of land which holds value and not physical size of land. deduction has to be made from gross permissible FSI to arrive at usable FSI. Further, Assessing Officer has faulted rates adopted by valuer without indicating as to what according to Assessing Officer should be correct rates. He has adopted puerile give all-or-take-all approach according to which if valuation report does not provide correct estimate of FMV it has to be rejected in toto and value as assessed in Wealth Tax is then to be adopted. It does not require any explanation to demonstrate naivety of approach which recognizes only extremities and ignores entire range in between. It is of piece with notion that only two poles exist and not world between them. If Assessing Officer was not satisfied with report of valuer, he could have, as explained in CBDT Circular No. 96, dated 25- 11-1972 referred matter to Valuation Officer under section 55A(b)(ii). But instead Assessing Officer rejected report for apparently untenable reasons. 10. So far as valuation is concerned following important facts need to be appreciated. land in question is about 3 k.m. from main gate of Pune University and even lesser from its periphery. It is not more than 2.5 k.m. from Governor's House. Thus, even in 1981 plot was not far out from urban agglomeration. At time development in area was in its nascent urban agglomeration. At time development in area was in its nascent stage. plot is elongated rectangular strip abutting along its entire length on 80 ft. wide D P Road which connects to Pune-Mumbai highway. value of land as assessed in Wealth Tax is Rs. 1,50,404 for assessment year 1981-82. This translates to abysmally low and absolutely absurd rate of Rs. 2.37 per sq. mt. (Rs. 150505/63474 sq. mt.) or Paise 22 per sq. ft. ! From value of Rs. 1.50 lakh in 1981 to sale price of Rs. 10.77 crore in 1996 is fantastic leap of 716 times in 15 years ! Such phenomenal appreciation in value in such short time is well nigh impossible in middle/upper middle class locality. If FMV or Rs. 99 lakh estimated by valuer in 1981 is taken, appreciation would be more reasonable, though still high, 11 times. This indicates that value estimated by valuer is reasonable. This conclusion is reinforced if ratio of cost inflation index is inversely applied to sale price of Rs. 10.77 crore. This index in 1981 was 100 and in 1996 it was 305. Accordingly, value of Rs. 10.77 crore in 1996 will translate to Rs. 3.53 crore (Rs. 10.77 crore X 100/305) in 1981. value estimated by valuer, therefore, appears to be quite in order. report is based on actual sale instances. rates and ratios taken by valuer appear reasonable and valuer's approach conservative. In my opinion, therefore, report did not deserve to be rubbished as unreliable.' Aggrieved by above order assessee as well revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 14. learned counsel for assessee reiterated submissions made before revenue authorities. Heard DR. 15. Considering rival submissions, we are of view that issue has to go in assessee's favour. CIT(A) records vide para 5.1 of his order that land was received in gift by forebears and inherited by their progeny and its cost was nil. In support of above proposition assessee produced old revenue records obtained from Government archives. above records were rejected by CIT(A) for reason that these records 'merely shows that said land in Aundh village of Poona was 'Inam' land and that tenure thereof was permanent. translation of report of Inam Commission has been furnished which shows that as far back as 1-12-1885 said land was recorded as Inam land received by way of Choli Bangdi. However, extracts furnished state that Inam documents in respect of said land are not available.' It was recorded that extracts of Inam documents were not available. Assessee's stand was rejected by CIT(A) on that count alone. But we are of view that prima facie assessee has established that land was received by way of choli bangdi by their ancestor Chimnibai as accepted by Tribunal in its order dated 23-8-1976 in assessee's own case for assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70. Another reason for rejection of assessee's contention by CIT(A) was that Aundh land was received in gift by Chimnibai from Peshwa was that, Chimnibai was given on marriage to Jivajirao who in genealogical table of Scindias figures two generations after Daulat Rao. Gwalior Gazetteer was complied in 1908 by Capt. C.E. Luard, Superintendent of Gazetteer in Central India, which includes text of Treaty of Peace and Friendship entered into between English East India Company and Maharajah Daulat Rao Scindia, ancestor of assessee in 1803. If that be so, according to CIT(A), incident that took place two generations after, i.e., during period of Jivajirao could not be recorded and cannot be mentioned by Maharaja Daulat Rao Scindia. We are unable to subscribe to this view for simple reason that, first of all, life span of any of these persons is not recorded and secondly, there could be third generation in all probabilities within span of 60 to 70 years. Assuming that Chimnibai was given in marriage to Jivajirao when Jivajirao was in 20s, third generation ancestor Daulat Rao could be alive possibly in late 60s, Of course, we are giving this conclusion only on basis of probabilities because none of parties have produced before us any evidence to show exact age and period of any of Maharajas and Maharanies involved in disputed land of choli bangdi. Hence these reasons of CIT(A) cannot be sole base to reject assessee's contention and recording of Gwalior Gazetteer, which was accepted by Tribunal in deciding assessee's own case for assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70. 16. Coming to contention of assessee that either in hands of Scindias or in hands of Peshwas there is no cost of acquisition and as such there cannot be capital gains, it also is to be accepted. In absence of any evidence to show that land was purchased by paying cash, assessee's contention dated 13-3-2002 which is recorded vide para 5.III which reads as under is to be accepted:- '3. Insofar as evidence that neither Peshwas nor Scindia had incurred any cost towards acquiring said land of Aundh is concerned, it is submitted that save and except historical and factual background it is very difficult, if not impossible, to adduce documentary evidence in respect of same. Be that as it may it is too well known fact that rulers of yester years did not acquire their kingdoms by paying any consideration and same was acquired by them by force of their strength and in battles and wars, and in other cases by dowry, etc., like in instant case.' 17. In case of CIT v. Manoharsinghji P. Jadeja [2006] 281 ITR 19 (Guj.) held as under:- 'Though section 45 of Income-tax Act, 1961, is charging section Legislature has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute profits or gains under that head and no provision at variance with such computation provisions can be applied for determining chargeable profits and gains. asset referred to in section 45 of Act has to be one: (i) in acquisition of which it is possible to envisage cost; (ii) in acquisition whereof assessee had incurred cost, and onus of showing that assessee had incurred cost is on revenue. If revenue fails to show that assessee had incurred cost, it would be impossible to compute income chargeable to tax under head 'Capital gains'. By Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1- 4-1988, amendment to section 55 of Act only ropes in taxability of goodwill on transfer of same even if there is no cost of acquisition. Similarly, section 55 has been amended from time to time to enable taxation of other assets wherein no cost of acquisition is envisaged. Therefore, even if amendment is taken into consideration section 55 can be invoked in cases of nil cost of acquisition for purpose of bringing to tax entire sale consideration only in relation to specified assets.' From reading of this it is clear that it is for revenue to show that assessee had incurred cost in acquiring land whereas CIT(A) had rejected assessee's prima facie evidences for reason that Inam documents in respect of land was not available though translation of report of Inam Commission was furnished which clearly shows that as far back as 1-12-1885 said land was recorded as Inam land received by way of choli bangdi. 18. Coming to decision relied by assessee in case of H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji (supra), Madhya Pradesh High Court - Indore Bench, it was clearly held that 'the liability to tax on capital gains would arise in respect of only those capital assets in acquisition of which element of cost is either actually present or is capable of being reckoned and not in respect of those assets in acquisition of which element of cost is altogether inconceivable. In case where cost cannot be ascertained, fair market value cannot be taken into consideration under section 55 of Income- tax Act, 1961, because very basis of capital gains is that at some point of time person who initially acquired property did so at some cost in terms of money.' While coming to above conclusion Hon'ble High Court has considered decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Home Industries & Co. [1977] 107 ITR 609 (Bom.)and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty (supra). 19. learned CIT(A) had not agreed to assessee's contention that issue is covered in case of H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji (supra) in assessee's favour for reason that assessee failed to prove that land had no cost for Peshwas. In light of decision of Hon'ble High Court wherein Lordships held that revenue to prove other way, this reasoning of CIT(A) is to be rejected. 20. learned CIT(A) vide para 8.1 of his order rejected assessee's production of new evidences in form of old revenue records obtained from Government archives as it was not produced before Assessing Officer observing as under:- 'As brought out in para 3 above, before Assessing Officer assessee's AR in their last communication dated 28-2-2000 merely made bald statement that 'the said plot of land, we are being informed, became property of Scindia family' by gift on marriage of their ancestor Jivajirao to Chimnibai. Not even shred of evidence was furnished before Assessing Officer in support of same. Nor was any time sought for purpose. assessment proceedings had stretched over eight months. So, non-furnishing of evidence could certainly not be for lack of opportunity. Nor is it case that evidence, subsequently produced in appeal, was not available earlier. On these facts rule 46A will operate with full force to bar admission of evidence on point at appellate stage.' 21. Again vide para 8.2 assessee's contention on merit was also rejected by CIT(A) on following lines:- 'Without prejudice to above statutory bar, on merits also there is no case. There is neither any direct, or even credible circumstantial evidence, to establish that land had no cost to Peshwas. As brought out in para 5.III above, assessee expressly concedes lack of cogent evidence in this regard. case of assessee hangs tenuously from slim strand of dubious generalization that medieval monarchs always acquired territory either by wresting it by force or arms or through matrimony. History is replete with examples of rulers acquiring lands in exchange of goods or munitions, towards arrears of land revenue, as compensation for military or other services rendered and even by outright purchase. Territories acquired as spoils of wars were those of enemy. In instant case land in question is in Pune - Peshwas' home turf. Thus, besides turning history on its head, assessee's contention offends principle that evidence has to be specific to facts at issue. Sweeping generalizations cannot be paraded to prove particular facts at issue.' 22. We are unable to appreciate above reasoning of CIT(A) either. As mentioned earlier, in light of decision of Gujarat High Court in case reported in Manoharsinghji P. Jadeja (supra) burden is on revenue to prove that assessee had incurred cost for acquiring land and not vice versa. Appeal by assessee is allowed. 23. Since we have allowed assessee's appeal on above point, it is not necessary for us to discuss issue on alternate ground. ITA No. 4437/M/2002 24. Coming to revenue's appeal, revenue is objecting direction of CIT(A) to recompute capital gains arising on sale of land at Pune by adopting FMV as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 99 lakh (based on valuation report of Government approved Valuer) as against value adopted by Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,50,404 (as assessed in Wealth Tax assessment for assessment year 1981-82). 25. Since we have allowed assessee's appeal, this ground becomes infructuous and it is not necessary for us to deal with it on merit. Appeal by revenue is dismissed. 26. In result, appeal by assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed. *** HUF OF H.H. LATE SIR J.M. SCINDIA MAHARAJA JYOTIRADITYA M. SCINDIA v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX