IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA Nos.1765 /Ahd/2013 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda e-3, 3rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Baroda 390007 Appellant Vs. Shri Dharamshibhai N Prajapati A-3, Rajlakshmi Society, New Sama Road, Baroda 390002 Respondent PAN: AAQPT6390Q & ITA Nos.1766/Ahd/2013 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda e-3, 3rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Baroda 390007 Appellant Vs. Shri Kishorbhai D Prajapati A-3, Rajlakshmi Society, New Sama Road, Baroda Respondent PAN: ACQPP5957K ITA No.1765 & 1766/Ahd/2013 (Dharamshibhai N Prajapati & Kishorbhai D. Prajapati)) A.Y. 2009-10 -2- By Revenue : Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R. By Assessee : None Date of Hearing : 20.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2016 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER These two Revenue s appeals for A.Y.2009-10 filed in case of different assessees arise against separate orders of CIT(A)-II, Baroda, dated 31.03.2013 and 28.03.2013, in cases no.CAD/II-273 & 271/11-12; respectively, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961; in short Act . 2. perusal of case files reveals that Revenue s sole substantive ground identical in two appeals seeks to revive short term capital gain addition of Rs.1,67,77,940/- in each assessee s case as made by Assessing Officer in assessment orders passed on 29.11.2011. 3. We come to relevant facts. Both these assessees co-purchased impugned capital asset in nature of parcel of land at RS No.607/A, Sayajipura Village, District Baroda along with 5 other co-vendees for gross amount of Rs.18lacs. These vendees amended purchased deed on 15.07.2006 seeking to exclude two of them from array of purchasers for not being farmers. These parties arrived at understanding on 16.07.2006 to determine share of outgoing purchasers to 14 & 12% to be realized at time of sale of land. remaining 5 co-purchasers sold this land on 16.10.2008 for Rs.7,68,63,000/-. These assessees declared their respective share in sale price as Rs.1,36,34,800/- and Rs.1,09,16,400/-. Assessing ITA No.1765 & 1766/Ahd/2013 (Dharamshibhai N Prajapati & Kishorbhai D. Prajapati)) A.Y. 2009-10 -3- Officer invoked Section 50C of Act. He sought concerned Sub-Registrar s opinion. This authority intimated sale price of capital asset in question to be Rs.8,56,89,700/-. Assessing Officer expressed agreement with same. He reduced purchased price to Rs.18lacs to assess each of two assessees before us qua 1/5th share of remaining sum of Rs.8,38,89,700/- coming to Rs.1,67,77,940/- to make impugned short term capital gain addition in their hands. 4. assessees preferred separate appeals. CIT(A) allowed both cases by following observations on identical lines. 3.3.1. I have considered facts of case and submissions of Authorized Representative of assessee. I have also perused report of DVO dated 15.02.2013. appellant has also submitted copy of report on 19.03.2013. As per said report, valuation of property is estimated at Rs.1,55,64,925/- as against declared value of Rs.1,53,72,600/- by appellant. Thus, there is only meager difference between two figures. This is in contrast to figure of sale taken by Assessing Officer at Rs.1,67,77,940/-(1/5th share of assessee after reducing purchase cost of Rs.18,00,000/-from sale value of land as per value adopted for purpose of stamp duty i.e., Rs.8,56,89,700/-). Therefore, correct figure of sale as per Assessing Officer should have been Rs.1,71,37,940/- (Rs.8,56,89,700/- divided by 5) and Rs.1,67,77,940/- was value of STCG as per computation of Assessing Officer since, as per report of DVO, there is negligible difference in sale value of land from value declared by appellant, value adopted by Assessing Officer u/s. 50C has to be ignored. Thus, addition made under this head is directed to be deleted. 5. We have heard both parties reiterating their respective stands. There is hardly any dispute left by now that there arises only meager difference between sale price (s) declared and that estimated by DVO i.e. Rs.1,53,72,600/- & Rs.1,55,64,924/- ;respectively. CIT(A) concludes in these circumstances that this variation is very much negligible one as against that taken in assessment order. Revenue s arguments fail to rebut this factual position. We hold this peculiar factual backdrop that impugned issue of valuation of capital asset sold is purely factual one having its own intricacies based on location, nature of property and other surrounding ITA No.1765 & 1766/Ahd/2013 (Dharamshibhai N Prajapati & Kishorbhai D. Prajapati)) A.Y. 2009-10 -4- factors. Ld. Departmental Representative does not produce any material on record supporting Revenue s case that value of capital asset sold has in any case been under priced. We find no reason accordingly to interfere in CIT(A) s appeal finding in both cases. 6. These two revenue s appeals are dismissed. Pronounced in open Court on this 27th day of September, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 27/09/2016 True Copy S.K.SINHA Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Revenue 2. Assessee 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda v. Dharamshibhai N Prajapati